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

Re: Proposal for hash functions in SPARQL 1.1

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:46:44 +0100
Message-Id: <11ED8FA0-EF39-42E4-B7C5-28E94D6EA538@garlik.com>
To: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Proposal 1: +1
Proposal 2: +1
Proposal 3: -1

Prefer to exclude anything not required from the grammar, but not really that bothered.

- Steve
 
On 2011-09-29, at 14:13, Matthew Perry wrote:

> 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
>> 
> 
> 

-- 
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 Thursday, 29 September 2011 13:47:15 GMT

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