- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 11:41:57 +0000
- To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Cc: Paul Gearon <gearon@ieee.org>, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
One more thing, the canonical form for hex numbers in XSD is uppercase letters (http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#hexBinary-lexical-representation). On the other hand, though FOAF doesn't specify, but the vast majority of foaf:mbox_sha1sum examples I've seen in the wild have been lower case. It can be worked around with judicious application of either UCASE() or LCASE(), but we should specify one. I have no preference. FWIW, "deadbeef"^^xsd:hexBinary = "DEADBEEF"^^xsd:hexBinary, so that would sortof be a solution, but adding a datatype to SPARQL just to handle this problem seems crazy. - Steve On 2010-12-07, at 10:43, Steve Harris wrote: > On 2010-12-06, at 17:39, Paul Gearon wrote: > >> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 7:44 AM, Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com> wrote: >>> If these are going to return a simple literal containing hex characters, rather than some 128 / 160 / 256 bit integer datatype, then I'd prefer MD5_HEX() etc. >> >> The standard result of this algorithm is almost always presented as a >> hex string, so that may be redundant. It might be nice to have a >> version that returned a xsd:hexBinary. I also thought it would be nice >> to accept an xsd:hexBinary as an alternative to a string. That said, I >> didn't suggest anything like these since I was trying to keep it >> simple, and not bloat the spec. > > OK, the languages I'm most familiar with (C and Perl), return big integers (actually structs of ints) by default. > > I guess I don't foresee any serious problems just returning hex strings in SPARQL. > >>> I marginally prefer named functions, e.g. SHA256_HEX(?x), rather than SHA_HEX(?x, 256). Length might not be enough to distinguish all algorithms on it own, so we could end up with some odd cases. >>> >>> BTW, hexadecimal SHA1 values are 40 characters long. >> >> They are indeed. I copied/pasted from MD5 and missed that part, sorry. > > I guessed that was the problem, the intent was clear enough. > > - Steve > > -- > Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited > 1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK > +44 20 8439 8203 http://www.garlik.com/ > Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11 > Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD > > -- Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited 1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK +44 20 8439 8203 http://www.garlik.com/ Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11 Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
Received on Tuesday, 7 December 2010 11:42:35 UTC