- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 14:53:05 +0100
- To: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
- CC: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 22/05/12 14:50, Gregory Williams wrote: > On May 22, 2012, at 7:29 AM, Steve Harris wrote: > >> I've only read 10.2, but it seems good to me. >> >> The only thing I wonder about is if UNDEF would be better as UNBOUND, to match BOUND(). It's more characters, but might be more consistent? > > I thought the same thing, but am getting more and more reluctant to change things that we've had around for a long time… > > .greg > I have a mild preference for UNDEF - it's talking about the value. Values aren't "bound" - variables are. Granted it is making a binding for a variable but the syntax is an aligned list of values. Andy
Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2012 13:54:02 UTC