On 19/06/16 10:57, james anderson wrote:
good morning;
On 2016-06-18, at 22:25, Andy Seaborne <[email protected]> wrote:
On 18/06/16 15:08, Jean-Marc Vanel wrote:
[…]
The advantages of numbers stored as binary versus strings are:
- less storage - less CPU in conversion of string => number when
using API - more efficient SPARQL queries involving numbers
computations
A negative is that exact representation is lost
"+1" and "1" and "0001"
"1"^^xsd:integer and "1"^^xsd:int
have there been applications where this mattered, where it was
eventually decided that it was necessary to entrain some distinction
in the encoding and not better to account for the respective
semantics explicitly in the model?
Some. Questions comes up on users@ every so often - not frequently.
A user expectation is that read-write of a model does not change the
model but here it does in the detail. So detailed data checking or
ETL-ish apps can be sensitive to this.
And you can see it in SPARQL with sameTerm.
For TDB2, I am thinking of extending it to xsd:doubles (64 bits needed)
which would also extend the range of handled decimals.
Andy
best regards, from berlin, --- james anderson | [email protected] |
http://dydra.com
