Skip to content

Conversation

@kasei
Copy link
Contributor

@kasei kasei commented Oct 31, 2025

In defining SPARQL functions, we often say "This function is the same as" and link to an XPath definition. However, several of the XPath functions are misnamed in this linking. This PR fixes the function and operator names for:

  • fn:numeric-equal -> op:numeric-equal
  • fn:numeric-abs -> fn:abs
  • fn:numeric-round -> fn:round
  • fn:numeric-ceil -> fn:ceiling
  • fn:numeric-floor -> fn:floor

Preview | Diff

In defining SPARQL functions, we often say "This function is the same as" and
link to an XPath definition. However, several of the XPath functions are
misnamed in this linking. This PR fixes the function and operator names for:

* `fn:numeric-equal` -> `op:numeric-equal`
* `fn:numeric-abs` -> `fn:abs`
* `fn:numeric-round` -> `fn:round`
* `fn:numeric-ceil` -> `fn:ceiling`
* `fn:numeric-floor` -> `fn:floor`
@kasei kasei requested review from Tpt and afs October 31, 2025 16:20
Copy link
Contributor

@hartig hartig left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nice catch!

@afs
Copy link
Contributor

afs commented Nov 1, 2025

I checked sparql.ttl and it looks clean.

Section 17 says op: is a notation convention but only for section 17 and op: is in section 18 as well.

https://www.w3.org/TR/sparql12-query/#expressions

Typographical convention in this section: XPath operators are labeled with the prefix op:. XPath operators have no namespace; op: is a labeling convention.

See suggestion.

Copy link
Contributor

@Tpt Tpt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks!

@kasei kasei merged commit e74d621 into main Nov 20, 2025
2 checks passed
@afs
Copy link
Contributor

afs commented Dec 16, 2025

@kasei - can this branch be deleted?

@kasei kasei deleted the gtw-fo-refs branch December 16, 2025 16:48
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants