From: stabet@comcast.net
Date: 01/06/04
Hi Mike and all, see my comments below. thanks, -said > > Said: what's the current status of the list of > > arithmetic/comparison/string/list built-ins you (plus I and Harold) have > > been working on? > > That included stuff drawn from looking at other systems/standards (like > > Prolog and Jess) as well as from XML-Schema / XQuery. > > I think you're the maintainer of that list/document. > > Assuming folks are still happy with swrlx:operationAtom this week, I think > next week would be a good time to revisit this list. I agree with Mike and suggest to present the list of built-ins that we worked on next week. > > > Most importantly: is there any stuff there we should include that's not > > in > > the XML-Schema / XQuery set of stuff? > > I think we'll probably want to add a few more operators to [1] like > numeric-greater-than-or-equal, numeric-less-than-or-equal, and > numeric-not-equal based on numeric-equal, numeric-less-than, and > numeric-greater-than. These are mostly covered in the list mentioned above. > > Also, [1] uses fn:compare for strings (to accommodate an optional collation > argument) which returns <0, 0, or >0. Using this would require 2 > swrlx:operatorAtoms. I think we may want to introduce string-equal, > string-less-than, etc. as easier-to-use forms. > I agree > Mike > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery-operators/ >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 01/06/04 EST