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

function library summary and issues

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 18:33:51 +0000
Message-Id: <974040E8-4FE3-4364-BAF9-D2CD4F94B767@deri.org>
To: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Hi all,

we only started to discuss function library today, so let me try to summarise:

We aim to include:

1) the functions/operators already there in the query draft in sections 17.4.1 - 17.4.24 
2) the fn: functions and operators from Lee's mail, cf. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010OctDec/0188.html
3) Rand() as per steve's mail

Side issues around that which I am aware of:

  cf. http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-11-16#line0289
  As for 2) there were some discussions about concat still, with three alternatives:
  - take fn:concat "as is" i.e. only accepting xs:AtomicTypes castable to xs:string
  - define our own, which would only allow strings
  - define our own, along with implicit use of STR() on the arguments

* URIs/namespaces: 
  cf. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010OctDec/0242.html
  How about the URIs for the functions we recommend?
  - do we define a new namespace for all new functions (which is the default, i.e. makes fnsparql: functions usable without the prefix)? 
  - can we define a "namespace profile" a la RDFa?

* "+" for concatenation?
  cf. http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-11-02#__2b__for_fn__3a_concat___3f_
  in search for a resolution on '+' ? I think we still haven't had a resolution on whether we allow overloading of "+" for string 
  concatenation, but that is pending some action of mine to come up with test cases.

* Do we want to adopt/re-use more RIF functions?
  cf. http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-dtb/
Received on Tuesday, 16 November 2010 18:34:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:02 UTC