- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@talis.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 12:29:17 +0000
- To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- CC: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 23/02/2010 7:39 PM, Steve Harris wrote: > 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. Partial execution is a real pain. I don't see that happening here because if an expression (function evaluation) is an error, and it's no different to 1/?x, then the error is trapped in the case of both FILTERs and SELECT expressions. Andy > > - Steve >
Received on Thursday, 25 February 2010 12:29:42 UTC