- From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 08:30:43 -0500
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@talis.com>
- CC: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>, "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Andy Seaborne wrote: > > > On 14/11/2009 06:39, Steve Harris wrote: >> On 14 Nov 2009, at 05:48, Alexandre Passant wrote: >>> Based on your previous email "COALESCE (or whatever it's called) takes >>> 1 or more arguments and returns the first of its arguments that is >>> bound to a value (i.e. first argument that is not unbound and not a >>> type error)." >>> >>> So what about FIRST_BOUND or something explicit like that ? >> >> "First" is a bit ambiguous. Lexically? (where?), chronologically? >> >> I thought about LEFTMOST(), but that's not great either. >> >> - Steve >> > > LEFTMOST is possible. > > A word with a firstness about it would be good. > I think "first" for "first in list" is clear enough. > > FIRST_SAFE seems accurate albeit long. > FIRST_VALID > > Just SAFE? More emphasis on it's protecting role than the order. > > PROTECT? > I agree that there isn't really any confusion about FIRST if combined with something else descriptive. I like FIRST_BOUND myself. SAFE implies all sorts of security stuff to me which would confuse me. FIRST_VALID is ok, but I prefer first_bound. or i'm also still happy with COALESCE for all the reasons Steve has suggested. Lee
Received on Saturday, 14 November 2009 13:31:24 UTC