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

Re: [TF-LIB] Finalizing built-ins

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@talis.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 12:29:17 +0000
Message-ID: <4B866D1D.1030806@talis.com>
To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
CC: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>


On 23/02/2010 7:39 PM, Steve Harris wrote:
> 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.

Partial execution is a real pain.

I don't see that happening here because if an expression (function 
evaluation) is an error, and it's no different to 1/?x, then the error 
is trapped in the case of both FILTERs and SELECT expressions.

	Andy

>
> - Steve
>
Received on Thursday, 25 February 2010 12:29:42 GMT

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