- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 11:16:02 +0100
- To: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- CC: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Steve Harris wrote: > On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 10:24:39 +0100, Andy Seaborne wrote: > >>[[While I was in the area, I also fixed test str-4 because it assumed >>str(_:a) >>=> "" which is at odds with rq23]] > > > This test was not approved, but I seem to remember it being discussed in a > telecon or face to face, was it something we voted on, or only a straw > poll? On #dawg? > > It's quite a significant change, and I would prefer to discuss it. Lucky I looked at it then because the text and the test seem to be different :-) What are your thoughts on it? At the moment, I see more logic to the design of str([]) => error than str([]) => "" because the latter might create an expection that the bNode label be returned, not the empty string. That said, I have implemented both ways round (I had to make the change to making it an error when I went back and checked my implementation against the latest text because I found ARQ was doing the wrong thing spec-wise). Andy > > - Steve >
Received on Wednesday, 26 October 2005 10:16:24 UTC