Re: what functions should we include in SPARQL 1.1?

On 09/11/10 17:42, Axel Polleres wrote:
>>>    which we may want to reuse, or should we uniformly refer to the
>>>    for all functions (also the xs: ones?
>> Reuse where possible.
> Remembering that we had this discussion partly before, one argument against reuse and for uniformly using a single
> namespace was that this single namespace would indicate exactly the interchangeable functions within the SPARQL1.1 spec
> and that these functions then would be usable without a namespace prefix as simple keywords of the language.

Must have missed that - I don't recall a proposal to make the names 
keywords in the language for all mandatory functions from F&O - is the 
proposal to add new keywords for all required functions, then map to 
IRIs (sparqlfn:) and owl:sameAs to fn:.



Received on Tuesday, 9 November 2010 20:03:01 UTC