- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 19:27:51 +0000
- To: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
- Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 24 Nov 2010, at 18:40, Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com> wrote:
> On Nov 24, 2010, at 1:12 PM, Steve Harris wrote:
>
>> On 2010-11-24, at 15:20, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>
>>> Practicality suggests simple literals are important.
>>> We can overlay on XSD F&O so for example:
>>>
>>> CONCAT("a"^^xsd:string, "b"^^xsd:string) -> "ab"^^xsd:string
>>> CONCAT("a", "b") -> "ab"
>>> CONCAT("a"^^xsd:string, "b") -> "ab"^^xsd:string (?? choice point)
>
> I think I'd want this to produce a simple literal, but as Steve says, without experience here it's hard to know.
>
>>> CONCAT("a"@en, "b"@fr) -> error? (choice point [*])
>>> CONCAT(str("a"@en), str("b"@fr)) -> "ab"
>>>
>>> [*] lang tag support in comparisons etc is not required by base SPARQL so it's an error. The question is whether to provide guidance to implementations that wish to provide it.
>>
>> Re. [*], for impl's which choose to implement it, I would favour "ab" as a result. We use language tags quite a bit, and though we haven't been able to concatenate them up to now, I would like/expect CONCAT("a"@en, "b"@fr) -> "ab". Less straightforward is CONCAT("a"@en", "b"@en), should that be "ab"@en, or "ab". Dropping the lang tag in all cases seems fine to me.
>
> I also would prefer CONCAT("a"@en, "b"@fr) -> "ab". I have no preference on whether concat of two literals with the same language tag should yield a language tagged literal.
>
>> What about CONCAT("1"^^xsd:integer, "2"^^xsd:integer), following F&O strictly it would be "12"^^xsd:string I believe.
>
> I'm a bit freaked out that this is going to cause confusion if + is also being used for string concat (assuming we follow the strawpoll support for overloading +). + would yield addition over xsd:integers, while the CONCAT() syntax would yield "12" with xsd:integers. Something doesn't seem right about that.
I agree that it seems a bit strange, but it's a consequence of combining a weakly typed language with operator overloading.
Even some strongly typed languages have this sort of oddity, e.g. Java's StringBuffer.append() appears to take a bunch of types as an argument, but + only works on pairs of numeric types, or strings, as far as I can tell. Not being a java user, I don't know how this pans out in practice.
- Steve
Received on Wednesday, 24 November 2010 19:29:10 UTC