- 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