W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: Proposal for hash functions in SPARQL 1.1

From: Matthew Perry <matthew.perry@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 09:13:10 -0400
Message-ID: <4E846EE6.8030204@oracle.com>
To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Proposal 1: +1
Proposal 2: 0
Proposal 3: 0

I would be fine with leaving the others in the Grammar.

- Matt

On 9/29/2011 9:06 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> Reduce the number of library (required) functions to
>
> Please put your (+1 | 0 | -1) on each of:
>
> Proposal 1:
> SHA1
> MD5
>
> Proposal 2:
> SHA1
> MD5
> SHA256
>
> Proposal 3:
> SHA1
> MD5
> SHA256
> SHA512
>
> Proposal 4:
> Other (with details)
>
>
> Variations: leave the other functions in as "informative, not required" and leave the keywords in the grammar.
>
>     Andy
>
Received on Thursday, 29 September 2011 13:13:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:46 GMT