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

Re: [TF-LIB] COALESCE is an unhelpful choice of name

From: Alexandre Passant <alexandre.passant@deri.org>
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 00:37:43 -0500
Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <30A92FA5-5E84-4A59-A8CB-E6FE30F49101@deri.org>
To: Paul Gearon <gearon@ieee.org>

On 13 Nov 2009, at 19:05, Paul Gearon wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 6:59 PM, Steve Harris  
> <steve.harris@garlik.com> wrote:
>> On 13 Nov 2009, at 13:01, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>> I don't find the name COALESCE very helpful.
>>> None of these seem good but they are better to me:
>>> VAL
>>> SAFE
>> None of these float my boat, but out of interest, what's the source  
>> of your
>> dislike for COALESCE? I find it pretty obvious, but then I've been  
>> using SQL
>> for too long.
> Personally, I'd never heard of this function, and it's been completely
> opaque to me. I've come back to it a few times now (each time after a
> break of a couple of weeks) and every time I've had to look up some
> documentation to remind myself of what it meant.
> But then, I haven't used SQL much in recent years.

I was in the same case, it took me a while before figuring out what  
that function what about.
It may be obvious from people with an SQL background but it's  
apparently, based on the feedback here, not a relevant name for people  
that don't have such background.

So, do we in general want to stick to SQL naming or focus on something  
easy to understand for people coming to SPARQL without any bg on SQL ?
I'd prefer the second option and then chose a more relevant name (as  
MELD for instance, or synonyms as FUSE)



> Regards,
> Paul Gearon

Dr. Alexandre Passant
Digital Enterprise Research Institute
National University of Ireland, Galway
:me owl:sameAs <http://apassant.net/alex> .
Received on Saturday, 14 November 2009 05:38:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:58 UTC