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: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 14:54:42 +0000
Cc: "Steve Harris" <steve.harris@garlik.com>, "SPARQL Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <69080DB5-60C6-4E42-B93F-778F6CE0F863@deri.org>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
alright, changed response draft respectively...
check http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:JG-1

Axel


On 17 Nov 2010, at 14:49, Andy Seaborne wrote:

> 
> 
> 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 15:04:16 GMT

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