W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > August 2005

Re: GROUP BY [ok?]

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 08:48:51 -0500
To: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, Richard Newman <rich@holygoat.co.uk>, Bruce D'Arcus <bdarcus@gmail.com>
Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <1125409731.16011.382.camel@dirk>

Taken literally, this thread seems to be questions about the
present SPARQL design... questions that seem to be answered.
Are the answers you've got sufficient?

If you meant to request to consider a new
requirement related to GROUP BY, would you please be more
explicit? We're in a rather formal part of the W3C process,
addressing last call comments; please excuse us if some
things seem a bit tedious.

Note that the WG has decided to postpone a related issue:

[[
countAggregate

other query languages have counting and other aggregate functions; these
are complicated in RDF due to open world notions of equality and
inequality.

      * accepted in 2005-06-28 telconference discussion, following
        comment from Das
      * postponed in 2005-06-28 telconference discussion
]]
  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#countAggregate

and we would need information that we haven't already discussed in order
to re-open that issue.


p.s. This thread isn't tracked by my current tools because they assume
threads don't start with "Re: ..." messages. I can make an exception
for this thread, but it'll make my life easier if it doesn't happen
again.


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 30 August 2005 13:48:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:14:49 GMT