Hi Holger,
I also think that the buildURI implementation is better. Tim ________________________________ From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Holger Knublauch Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 12:05 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [tbc-users] Re: buildURI and constructName Hi Tim, thanks for reporting this difference - other users may find it useful as well. I think the buildURI behavior is "better" in the sense that , is a strange URI character that is better replaced with underscores. Please let me know if you think otherwise. Holger On Oct 6, 2008, at 1:47 PM, Smith, Tim wrote: Since tops:constructName has been deprecated, I've slowly been converting my scripts over to smf:buildURI. One thing I noticed is that buildURI and constructName create different parsings for the same input string. This is something to watch for if you are relying on matching URIs to integrate data, particularly if you are trying to integrate new data (smf) with previously processed data (tops). In the example below, constructName leaves the comma in the URI. SELECT * { LET (?text := "My Co., LTD.") . LET (?smf_buildURI := smf:buildURI("http://www.mycompany.com# <http://www.mycompany.com> {?1}", ?text)) . ?tops_constructname tops:constructName("http://www.mycompany.com# <http://www.mycompany.com> {0}" ?text) . } The above query gives the following results on TBC-ME 2.6.2: [text] smf_buildURI tops_constructname My Co., LTD. <http://www.mycompany.com#My_Co._LTD.> <http://www.mycompany.com#My_Co.,_LTD.> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TopBraid Composer Users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/topbraid-composer-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
