- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 20:00:25 +0100
- To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
== Signatures Putting in the complete syntax signature in the description is a big improvement. It makes the section standalone as a reference for that function/operator. I didn't find the alternative form in "11.2.3.10 sop:RDFterm-equal" so useful but leaving in the syntax form as well is good. == Operator Table The new table layout gets round the number of arguments problem which does get in the way currently. Grouping by function is more reference-like though. Suggestion: have one table and have a single column for arguments then have 1,2 or 3 in that column as needed. Sort of a mixture of the new layout and old. == Other 1: Some mention of the error handling in sop:logical-or sop:logical-and sections (11.2.3.8 and 11.2.3.9) might help - again, to make these a Other 3: This is an observation and unrelated to the new format. I found in 11.1.1 """ XML Schema defines a set of types derived from decimal: integer; nonPositiveInteger; negativeInteger; long; int; short; byte; nonNegativeInteger; unsignedLong; unsignedInt; unsignedShort; unsignedByte and positiveInteger. These are all treated as decimals for arithmetic operations in FILTERs. SPARQL does not specifically require integrity checks on derived subtypes. """ I agree it does not lead to an observable difference (because we have only one version of divide) but the language is different in F&O where it says "integer + integer => integer", not decimal. Second table - http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-functions/#op.numeric If a custom function were to provide idiv, op:numeric-integer-divide, then the difference would observable because the types of input affect the value out. Hmm - that is at odds with the principle that SPARQL operates on values. 1/2 should not depend on whether it's "1"^^xsd:integer or "1"^^xsd:double (in the presence of D-entailment at least). Andy Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote: > I created http://www.w3.org/2005/10/rq23-cmp for folks to look at and > say "i like" or "i don't like". > > Operator Mapping Table [OPS] -- split by number of args > > Function definitions -- changed introductory example to look like a > function prototype. ex. isBound [BND] > > changed descriptive text to match argument > identifiers in the prototype. [LNG] > > enumerated all legal argument types in the > function descriptions. [LNG] > > The function description for sop:RDFterm-equal has three prototype > styles at the top. I prefer the middle (and used it elsewhere) but > I'm anxious to hear what others think, or if they have variations. > > If you like, or don't reply, I'll commit this in rq23/Overview.html > > [OPS] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/rq23-cmp#OperatorMapping > [BND] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/rq23-cmp#func-isBound > [LNG] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/rq23-cmp#func-lang
Received on Saturday, 22 October 2005 19:00:38 UTC