- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:39:31 +0000
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@talis.com>
- Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 23 Feb 2010, at 16:42, Andy Seaborne wrote: > On 23/02/2010 1:33 PM, Steve Harris wrote: >> Prefer STRDT(?str, ?dt) and STRLANG(?str, ?lang) or something >> similar, >> for consistency. Agreed that making this polymorphic is maybe not a >> good >> idea. No strong feelings though. > > STR* are OK although it's not a string, it's literal (not a plain > literal or xsd:string). > > LIT_DT > LIT_LANG > > LITDT > LITLANG Yes, fair point, either of the the above are fine. > > I can imagine this playing havoc with peoples extension function > > implementations, and security models. > > Not sure I quite follow. The only new issue, if a system wants to > allow the feature anyway, here is a change from from static to > dynamic resolution. It won't parse under SPARQL 1.0. I don't really want to go into details (like Lee says, it's a bit of a huge issue to consider at this point anyway), but you could end up partially executing a query, so that you can tell if your security model should allow it to be executed - that's very from from ideal. - Steve -- Steve Harris, Garlik Limited 2 Sheen Road, Richmond, TW9 1AE, UK +44 20 8973 2465 http://www.garlik.com/ Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11 Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
Received on Tuesday, 23 February 2010 19:40:01 UTC