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

Re: xs:string return types: [was Re: function library summary and issues]

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 22:22:39 +0000
Message-ID: <4CE455AF.5050907@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 20:56, Steve Harris wrote:
> On 2010-11-17, at 15:36, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>> The return type for fn:concat and fn:strig-join is xs:string not a simple literal.
>> On 16/11/10 18:33, Axel Polleres wrote:
>>> * CONCAT:
>>>    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
>> My reading is that a consequence of this is:
>> fn:concat("a", "b") ->  "ab"^^xsd:string
>> Do we want that?  I don't think it's helpful.
>> The example in section 2.5 is wrong (who added that?)
>> Steve --
>> The signature for fn:string-join used in GROUP_CONCAT is also returns an xsd:string did you mean that?  The example underneath does not match that.
> Ah, I hadn't registered that.
> I would expect a plain literal to be more useful in the RDF world. My proposal is to change the definition to STR(fn:string-join(...)). Unless people really want an xsd:string?

STR(...) -- Fine by me.

It's a "simple literal"  Simple literal is terminology EricP invented 
for SPARQL 1.0 because "plain literal" is a literal that can take an 
optional language tag and we wanted terminology for the no datatype, no 
language tag form.

Received on Wednesday, 17 November 2010 22:23:18 UTC

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