W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2010

Re: [TF-LIB] Finalizing built-ins

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:39:31 +0000
Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <78ABE0C0-A9D0-4535-8246-4EBEDE7B8DF7@garlik.com>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@talis.com>
On 23 Feb 2010, at 16:42, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> On 23/02/2010 1:33 PM, Steve Harris wrote:
>> Prefer STRDT(?str, ?dt) and STRLANG(?str, ?lang) or something  
>> similar,
>> for consistency. Agreed that making this polymorphic is maybe not a  
>> good
>> idea. No strong feelings though.
>
> STR* are OK although it's not a string, it's literal (not a plain  
> literal or xsd:string).
>
> LIT_DT
> LIT_LANG
>
> LITDT
> LITLANG

Yes, fair point, either of the the above are fine.

> > I can imagine this playing havoc with peoples extension function
> > implementations, and security models.
>
> Not sure I quite follow.  The only new issue, if a system wants to  
> allow the feature anyway, here is a change from from static to  
> dynamic resolution.  It won't parse under SPARQL 1.0.

I don't really want to go into details (like Lee says, it's a bit of a  
huge issue to consider at this point anyway), but you could end up  
partially executing a query, so that you can tell if your security  
model should allow it to be executed - that's very from from ideal.

- Steve

-- 
Steve Harris, Garlik Limited
2 Sheen Road, Richmond, TW9 1AE, UK
+44 20 8973 2465  http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10  
9AD
Received on Tuesday, 23 February 2010 19:40:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:41 GMT