W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > July to September 2009

RE: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Feature:FunctionLibrary#Starting_Points

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:15:15 +0000
To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
CC: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B6CF1054FDC8B845BF93A6645D19BEA3693E1879E7@GVW1118EXC.americas.hpqcorp.net>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rdf-dawg-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Axel Polleres
> Sent: 22 September 2009 17:07
> To: Lee Feigenbaum
> Cc: SPARQL Working Group
> Subject: Re:
> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Feature:FunctionLibrary#Starting_Poi
> nts
> 
> below, some discussion on the function-library TF, accidently not sent
> to the list.
> raw minutes of last week's function library TF teleconf available at:
>    http://www.w3.org/2009/09/15-sparql-func-irc
> 
> 
> Axel
> 
> On 22 Sep 2009, at 13:05, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
> 
> > Axel, why wouldn't we have discussion of the TF on the main mailing
> > list?
> 
> good point, lee ;-)
> 
> >
> > Lee
> >
> > Axel Polleres wrote:
> > > Hi Andy,
> > >
> > > just looking over the starting point functions at
> > >
> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Feature:FunctionLibrary#Starting_Poi
> nts
> > >
> > > Can't really get my head around
> > >
> > > LITERAL(str) ->
> > > LITERAL(str, IRI) ->  (not strictly needed -- xsd:integer("123")
> > does it.)
> > > LITERAL(str, string) ->
> > >
> > > Can you give me examples? I don't really see why/where the first
> one
> > > would be needed,


These make literals from the three parts of lexical form, language and datatype.

LITERAL("foo", "en") -> "foo"@en

Completeness suggests the first - no more.

> > > also I am not 100% sure what the last one shall be, I assume
> > > constructing a lang tagged literal, yes?
> > >
> > > I started a very rudimentary design page (didn't get very far
> yet...
> > > only the unary ones so far)
> > >
> > > http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Design:FunctionLibrary
> > >
> > > basically the plan is to
> > > * extending the tables as they are in section 11.3 of the current
> > spec
> > > with the newly to be added functions & operators
> > > * give a URI to all existing operators, incl the infix ones
> > >

Seem to have included some unnecessary ones - aren't ceiling floor etc in F&O? 

IIRC it's the fact that the syntax operators in SPARQL which use the dispatch table in sec 11 need URIs, and the ones SPARQL defines 

sameTerm, is*, str, datatype, langMatches, RDFTerm-equals, langMatches, 

and || , && and bound().

Is that the design intended?

	Andy

> > > Axel
> > >
> > > p.s.: the raw minutes from our last week's call are here:
> > > http://www.w3.org/2009/09/15-sparql-func-irc
> > >
> > >
> >
> 
> --
> Dr. Axel Polleres
> Digital Enterprise Research Institute, National University of Ireland,
> Galway
> email: axel.polleres@deri.org  url: http://www.polleres.net/
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 22 September 2009 16:16:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:08:28 GMT