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

Re: draft responce JG-1 (comments on functions and LET)

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 14:49:52 +0000
Message-ID: <4CE3EB90.3000709@epimorphics.com>
To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
CC: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>


On 17/11/10 11:35, Steve Harris wrote:
> On 2010-11-17, at 11:28, Axel Polleres wrote:
>
>>
>> On 17 Nov 2010, at 11:15, Steve Harris wrote:
>>
>>> Seems fine, but is it BIND() BIND() or BIND() ()?
>>
>> not sure as I couldn't find it in the grammar yet, Andy?
>> (I have no strong feelings on either)
>
> BIND() BIND() might leave more syntax options open in the future, but no strong preference.

BIND is exactly:

BIND(expr AS ?var)

A trailing optional expression will have lookahead problems with RDF 
list which also starts "("

	Andy

>
> - Steve
>
>>> It's probably right, just checking the response is correct.
>>>
>>> - Steve
>>>
>>> On 2010-11-17, at 10:42, Axel Polleres wrote:
>>>
>>>> I put up a draft response for
>>>>
>>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2010Nov/0005.html
>>>>
>>>> at
>>>>
>>>> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:JG-1
>>>>
>>>> Let me know whether you're ok with that or whether you think whether we should wait until BIND is specified further in the draft.
>>>>
>>>> Axel
>>>
>>> --
>>> Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited
>>> 1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
>>> +44 20 8439 8203  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 Wednesday, 17 November 2010 14:50:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:44 GMT