Re: what functions should we include in SPARQL 1.1?

On 2010-11-08, at 11:45, Andy Seaborne wrote:


>>> Yes, I share this thought. I have no a priori objection to RAND() but had the same reaction that this particular example can be pretty misleading as to what the meaning of the same query without ORDER BY RAND() is.
>> Agreed, I think. I wouldn't advocate using that as an example in the document, just that it's a common real world requirement, which we can't satisfy currently.
> All seems like a good idea.
> Steve -
> Either we get someone to take an action to produce the content we can incorporate into the doc.
> Or are you going to take this action and write this into the doc?
> I can add RAND to the grammar as:
> RAND()
> RAND(expression)

I'm happy to take an action to describe RAND(), but I'm not sure about RAND(expression). The defn. in SQL is a little murky, and it's tricky to make use of.

- Steve

Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited
1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
+44 20 8439 8203
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD

Received on Monday, 8 November 2010 18:28:50 UTC