[tdwg-tapir] Interpretation of TAPIR filters
Renato De Giovanni
renato at cria.org.br
Mon Nov 26 02:18:37 CET 2007
Yes, I fully agree that the spec should be revised to be clearer
about data types. I also like the idea of using "string" as a default
data type. Let's just wait a bit more to see if there are other
suggestions and opinions.
On 23 Nov 2007 at 21:22, Roger Hyam wrote:
> Hi Renato,
> I think I follow you - but I'll probably believe it when I see it
> spelled out in the spec.
> I think some of the sorting stuff should be in the specification.
> There are some things there that are implied but not expressed.
> 1) schema concepts should/must only be mapped to columns of the same
> data type in the host database or at least wrappers should act as if
> they are.
> 2) Values in queries (and parameters) should use the xsd serialization
> of date (and other things?). It is the wrappers responsibility to
> present the correctly to the underlying database.
> 3) If the concept does not have a data type the behaviour of orderby,
> greaterthan and lessthan are undefined? If we stick to XML Schema
> concept schemas then they default to string so maybe the default
> should be to act as string.
> What do you think?
More information about the tdwg-tag