- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 10:19:00 +0100
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Yes, I probably can't make the call, but Garlik would like to see 0-based string functions (maybe in addition to the 1-based ones?), and reducing the hash functions to just MD5, SHA1, and SHA256. The others don't seem to be widely used. - Steve On 27 Sep 2011, at 08:11, Andy Seaborne wrote: > Comment JB-7 [1] [2] is about (1) string functions and (2) the number of hash functions. > > Steve also mentioned that the use of 1-base strings can cause confusion. > > Could we have a slot in the agenda for these two areas? - I'm not clear where everyone's views currently are and going round-the-table would be helpful to me in making progress. > > Andy > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2011Aug/0001.html > > [2] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2011JulSep/0236.html >
Received on Tuesday, 27 September 2011 09:19:54 UTC