- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 12:25:36 +0000
- To: Paul Gearon <gearon@ieee.org>
- CC: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
I agree with Sandro that we should have sha1, sha224, sha256, sha384 and sha512. Whether they are named or have a length parameters (for certain fixed values only), I don't much mind. Does anyone want the ability to switch at runtime on a per-call basis? sha256(s) and sha(s, len) is also possible. FYI: Apache common codec does not have sha224. Searching, I find that sha224 is an addition of Feb 2004 and is a truncated SHA-2 256. On 03/12/10 23:04, Paul Gearon wrote: > As discussed in the last teleconf, I would like to propose the include > of an "md5sum" function, in a similar fashion to MySQL. Fine tuning: Just MD5() and SHA1()? md5sum is the name of a program that generates md5 checksums. (I know FOAF uses mbox_sha1sum but it also has the experimental foaf:sha1 for documents). > MD5SUM is often used for storing passwords. SHA1SUM is used in a > similar way, and is also used for hashing email addresses in FOAF. > > --- > > MD5SUM > > The MD5SUM function accepts a single plain literal argument and > returns a simple literal containing a string of exactly 32 characters. > Each character represents a hexadecimal digit and is one of [0-9a-f]. Is plain literal the right choice here? Either of simple literal simple literal+xsd:string make more sense to me The case of plain+lang seems to me to be a bad choice as the checksum does not include the language tag. Andy ... > > ?r > -- > "f96b697d7cb7938d525a2f31aaf161d0" ?r => ?m
Received on Monday, 6 December 2010 12:26:38 UTC