- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 21:42:21 -0500
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Jan 12, 2006, at 7:05 PM, Dan Connolly wrote: > I don't think there's any WG decision that I can cite > in response to this comment; I don't think we considered > identifier length, except inasmuch as we OK'd the grammar. > > I suppose it might be useful to specify that identifiers > longer than, say, 1024 characters aren't guaranteed > to work. I don't see that that's particularly useful. I mean, what' more likely to be an issue in an implementation is total number of variables in a query. 1024^nrofqueryvariablenamecharacters is a frickin lot of variables ;) Also, I don't think that we should limit the number of variables in a query. I searched around for some limits: http://www.oracle.com/technology/support/tech/sql_plus/htdocs/ sub_var6.html http://web.njit.edu/info/limpid/DOC/server.920/a90842/apa.htm http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/iseries/v5r3/index.jsp? topic=/db2/rbafzmstlimtabs.htm I mean, 128 chars....if we are talkin 1024 we should just say arbitrary :) > On the other hand, Java seems to get away with silence > on this issue... > > http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/third_edition/html/lexical.html#3.8 > > Does anybody have implementation-defined limits in their code? Since you already have to parse arbitrarily sized bits of data (including identifiers such as URIs), I think length of identifier doesn't matter *except* insofar as it constrains number of variables. And the kinds of constraints we are talking about (e.g., 1024) doesn't constraint *that* very effectively...so...why bother? Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Friday, 13 January 2006 02:42:30 UTC