- From: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 15:03:18 +0000
- To: "'RDF Data Access Working Group'" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
It seems logical. I havent implemented it so dont grok the problems yet, but I have a few minor concerns: On Sun, Feb 20, 2005 at 02:00:03PM +0000, Andy Seaborne wrote: > Proposal: > > 1/ str(type literal) return lexical form for the typed literals, without > canonicalization Seems reasonable and useful. > 2/ str(bNode) is an evaluation error Is it out of the question to get a string with the same form as a N3 bNode back? eg _:a. I'm not sure I'd argue for that, but I think that rejecting all solutions which feature str(?x) where ?x binds to a bNode will be inconvient and supprising in some cases. > 3/ str(expression) is legal - change the grammar production This seems right, but interacts a bit oddly with 1/ in that str(?x) and str(?x + 0) are quite different, even when ?x is bound to an integer: ex:foo rdf:value "001"^^xsd:Integer . SELECT ?x WHERE (ex:foo rdf:value ?x) AND str(?x+0) != "999" Quite possbily not an issue, but ?x and ?x+0 seem similar to me. > The only other choice I see is that str() only apply (syntactically) to a > variable but is we have value-based constraints, this is a rather odd. Yes, that seems odd. - Steve
Received on Sunday, 20 February 2005 15:08:25 UTC