You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The notions of identity and equality are often considered to be the same but sometimes they are not. RDF Concepts needs to be clear what equality of literal values means.
This is important for xsd:float and xsd:double as they have different identity and equality. Identity is the relationship that is important for RDF datatypes, not equality.
Several RDF datatypes use equality in the sense of identity:
rdf:HTML "are considered equal"
rdf:XMLLiteral "are considerd equal"
RDF:JSON "are considerd equal"
Perhaps the best solution is to uniformly use "identical" instead of "equal" here.
On a side note:
Can DOM nodes end up being connected together in a way that does not form a tree? Loops are not allowed, as the mutation algorithms appear to check for potential loops, but there doesn't appear to be any check for repeated occurences of a node.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
pfps
added
the
spec:editorial
Minor issue or proposed change in the specification (markup, typo, informative text)
label
Jun 28, 2024
The notions of identity and equality are often considered to be the same but sometimes they are not. RDF Concepts needs to be clear what equality of literal values means.
This is important for xsd:float and xsd:double as they have different identity and equality. Identity is the relationship that is important for RDF datatypes, not equality.
Several RDF datatypes use equality in the sense of identity:
rdf:HTML "are considered equal"
rdf:XMLLiteral "are considerd equal"
RDF:JSON "are considerd equal"
Perhaps the best solution is to uniformly use "identical" instead of "equal" here.
On a side note:
Can DOM nodes end up being connected together in a way that does not form a tree? Loops are not allowed, as the mutation algorithms appear to check for potential loops, but there doesn't appear to be any check for repeated occurences of a node.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: