dang! You guys are good! Suggested and already implemented ;) This project is so big it is hard to keep track of all the moving parts.
Claude On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Rob Vesse <[email protected]> wrote: > This is essentially what already exists as property functions within ARQ > and various other vendors implementations. > > What I was advocating for is explicit syntax that would identify such > functions as first-class citizens within the language rather than obscuring > them within the BGP syntax as is done today. Additionally it needs to > generalise to be able to consume the existing set of solutions upon which > it operates in order that intentions could efficiently processed the > function in the case where the existing solutions should be used to > constrain the possible outputs. > > The additional complication is handling functions which introduce > multiple output variables, again this is typically handled in existing > extensions by passing in A Collection of variables as the subject. Again > explicit syntax of what new variables are introduced would be a big help to > query engines. > > Rob > > On 26/04/2017 07:28, "Claude Warren" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Greetings, > > I was reading the "who made such idiocy" thread and began to think > about > how one might introduce a "function" that could return more than one > value > as was noted in the message stack. > > I started thinking about how XSLT has extension elements and thought > perhaps a property type that rather than being a standard lookup > performs a > function based on the object of the statement. > > For example: assume ex:textLookup calls a text index lookup function > and > returns the object of triples that have the values. Further assume > textLookup takes an argument list comprising the property to have the > value > and a list of text items to look for. Then: > > ?x ex:textLookup (dc:comment, "now", "is", "the", "time" ); > > would return a list of objects that have dc:comment properties that > contain > "now" or "is" or "the" or "time". > > This would be a major change to how properties are handled as any > property > that is a function would have to be identified and executed separately. > But I think as a construct it might work and it would be in concept > similar > to the XSLT extension element. > > Thoughts? > > Claude > > -- > I like: Like Like - The likeliest place on the web > <http://like-like.xenei.com> > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/claudewarren > > > > > > -- I like: Like Like - The likeliest place on the web <http://like-like.xenei.com> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/claudewarren
