W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2006

Re: Namespace of builtin functions

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 07:45:58 +0100
Message-Id: <F667EA17-3573-40BE-94F4-73844F69B932@garlik.com>
Cc: Howard Katz <howardk@fatdog.com>, 'dawg mailing list' <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>


On 10 Jun 2006, at 18:59, Seaborne, Andy wrote:

>
>
>
> Howard Katz wrote:
>> Hi Andy et al. Contrary to popular rumour (or opinion), I am  
>> alive. :-)
>
> Hoorah!
>
>> Just to point out two pieces of text from the F&O doc [1] that are  
>> relevant
>> but (to me at any rate) confusing:
>> "The namespace prefix used in this document for functions that are  
>> available
>> to users is fn. Operator functions are named with the prefix op."
>> and shortly thereafter:
>> "The functions defined with an fn prefix are callable by the user.  
>> Functions
>> defined with the op prefix are described here to underpin the  
>> definitions of
>> the operators in [XML Path Language (XPath) 2.0], [XQuery 1.0: An  
>> XML Query
>> Language] and [XSL Transformations (XSLT) Version 2.0]. These  
>> functions are
>> not available directly to users, and there is no requirement that
>> implementations should actually provide these functions. For this  
>> reason, no
>> namespace is associated with the op prefix."
>> In other words, there is an op: prefix but no namespace for it.  
>> I'm not sure
>> what to make of this.
>
> Some much text to choose from :-)
>
> The "no requirement" clause does not preclude providing them and  
> the earlier text would give the URI.  It's also almost as if there  
> is a shadow fn:add for op:add.

Yes, it feels like that to me too.

- Steve
Received on Sunday, 11 June 2006 06:46:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:26 GMT