W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: For review: VALUES

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 14:53:05 +0100
Message-ID: <4FBB9A41.5040806@epimorphics.com>
To: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
CC: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

On 22/05/12 14:50, Gregory Williams wrote:
> On May 22, 2012, at 7:29 AM, Steve Harris wrote:
>> I've only read 10.2, but it seems good to me.
>> The only thing I wonder about is if UNDEF would be better as UNBOUND, to match BOUND(). It's more characters, but might be more consistent?
> I thought the same thing, but am getting more and more reluctant to change things that we've had around for a long time…
> .greg

I have a mild preference for UNDEF - it's talking about the value.

Values aren't "bound" - variables are.  Granted it is making a binding 
for a variable but the syntax is an aligned list of values.

Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2012 13:54:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:06 UTC