This repository aims at
- discussing a possible future evolution of
xsd:decimalto support E notation, and - keep track of the current state of implementations.
The xsd:decimal datatype is defined in a way that it only support the "simple" decimal notation (e.g. 12.3) but not the E notation (e.g. 1.23E1).
This can be a problem when xsd:decimal values are generated programmatically. In particular, in JSON-LD, type coercion used with JSON numbers can lead to decimals expressed with the E notation, which are ill-formed, according to the standard.
It is not entirely clear why the E notation is was allowed for xsd:decimal.
If a new version of XSD Datatypes is published, it would seem like a good idea in extend xsd:decimal to support E notation.
As a matter of fact, many RDF and related implementations already support the E notation for xsd:decimal (see below).
So in practice, it might be relatively safe to use it, even though it is not (yet?) standard.
Implementations that support xsd:decimal with E notation
| Implementation | Version | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| GraphDB | 10.0.2 | tested with test.rq |
| Virtuoso | 8.03 | tested with test.rq, try online |
| Qlever | latest on 22-10-24 | tested with test_qlever.rq |
| RDFlib | 6.2.0 | tested with test_rdflib.py |
| Hermit | 1.3.8 | tested with test.owl.ttl |
| Eye | v22.1021.1922 | tested with test.n3, try online |
| CWM | 1.197 | tested with test.n3, try online |
Implementations that support xsd:decimal WITHOUT E notation
| Implementation | Version | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Apache Jena | 4.6.1 | tested with test.rq |
| Corese | commit 3ebe016 | tested with test.rq |
| Oxigraph | commit 825b330 | tested with test.rq |
| Ruby RDF | 3.2.9 | tested with test.rq |
If you know of another implementation that does not appear in the tables above, or of any change with a new version of one that does appear, please make a pull-request adding or updating a line in the appropriate table, following the model of other lines.