- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 22:22:39 +0000
- To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- CC: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 17/11/10 20:56, Steve Harris wrote:
> On 2010-11-17, at 15:36, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>
>> The return type for fn:concat and fn:strig-join is xs:string not a simple literal.
>>
>> On 16/11/10 18:33, Axel Polleres wrote:
>>> * CONCAT:
>>> cf. http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-11-16#line0289
>>> As for 2) there were some discussions about concat still, with three alternatives:
>>> - take fn:concat "as is" i.e. only accepting xs:AtomicTypes castable to xs:string
>>
>> My reading is that a consequence of this is:
>>
>> fn:concat("a", "b") -> "ab"^^xsd:string
>>
>> Do we want that? I don't think it's helpful.
>>
>> The example in section 2.5 is wrong (who added that?)
>>
>> Steve --
>>
>> The signature for fn:string-join used in GROUP_CONCAT is also returns an xsd:string did you mean that? The example underneath does not match that.
>
> Ah, I hadn't registered that.
>
> I would expect a plain literal to be more useful in the RDF world. My proposal is to change the definition to STR(fn:string-join(...)). Unless people really want an xsd:string?
STR(...) -- Fine by me.
It's a "simple literal" Simple literal is terminology EricP invented
for SPARQL 1.0 because "plain literal" is a literal that can take an
optional language tag and we wanted terminology for the no datatype, no
language tag form.
Andy
Received on Wednesday, 17 November 2010 22:23:18 UTC