- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 13:59:33 +0100
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Cc: "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
My temptation would be to say that CONCAT() always returns plain literal, but not say anything in particular about BIND(). I would hope that use of ""^^xsd:string will die out, and by RDF v+1 it would be legitimate to coerce to plain. - Steve Sent on the move. On 20 Apr 2011, at 12:11, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com> wrote: > Some good news: > > http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/rq25.xml#func-concat > > Because we decided CONCAT tends to produce simple literals, not xsd:string on mixed simple/xsd:string combinations, we are > > But should > > concat("foo"^^xsd:string, "bar"^^xsd:string) -> > "foobar"^^xsd:string (current defn) > or > "foobar" > > What about > > BIND("foo"^^xsd:string AS ?x) > > > > On 20/04/11 09:47, Andy Seaborne wrote: >> >> >> On 19/04/11 23:17, Steve Harris wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> The RDF WG intends to recommend that xsd:strings be silently >>> converted to RDF plain literals internally. See Resolution 1 in >>> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2011-04-13. >>> >>> This would have some impact on SPARQL deployments, as we go to some >>> lengths in a few places to preserve the differences. I'm not sure it >>> should necessarily affect the wording of any of the SPARQL texts, but >>> it's probably worth bearing in mind. It could be that we can simplify >>> some wording, but we should take care not to become dependent on a >>> new RDF rec. for publication. >>> >>> - Steve >>> >> >> What should update do? >> >> INSERT DATA { :s :p "foo"^^xsd:string } >> >> >> It affects query. BGP matching is simple entailment. >> The wording must change there surely? >> >> Either that or >> >> SELECT * { ?s ?p "foo"^^xsd:string } >> >> will stop matching on data now converted to "foo" without a software >> change to the query engine. >> >> Existing databases + new software will see a change. >> >> In my experience, it is OWL tools that will be affected as they like to >> use xsd:string in RDF for ontologies. >> >> Andy > > Some good news: > > http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/rq25.xml#func-concat > > Because we decided CONCAT tends to produce simple literals, not xsd:string on mixed simple/xsd:string combinations, we are > > The RDF-WG resolution says: > > """ > Recommend that systems silently convert xs:string data to plain literals. > """ > > So should > > concat("foo"^^xsd:string, "bar"^^xsd:string) -> > "foobar"^^xsd:string (current defn) > or > "foobar" > > What about > > BIND("foo"^^xsd:string AS ?x) > > > > Less good news: > > I hacked up a version of ARQ that parses xsd:strings to simple literals in data and SPARQL queries and got test failures in the SPARQL 1.0 test suite (as well as failures in ARQ's test suite). > > The 3 failures are all data related, 2 in the DISTINCT tests and 1 in the REDUCED tests. > > Andy >
Received on Wednesday, 20 April 2011 13:00:18 UTC