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

Re: For review: VALUES

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 15:10:49 +0100
Cc: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <8DA25531-6C05-4C05-974E-701848BCE0F4@garlik.com>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
On 2012-05-22, at 14:53, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> 
> 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.

I see the logic, just it loses the commonality with the associated function. Not a big deal.

For e.g. Perl has an undef symbol, but the associated function is called defined().

- Steve

-- 
Steve Harris, CTO
Garlik, a part of Experian
1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
+44 20 8439 8203  http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 653331 VAT # 887 1335 93
Registered office: Landmark House, Experian Way, Nottingham, Notts, NG80 1ZZ
Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2012 14:11:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:48 GMT