http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2005Apr/0014.html > Also, when limiting the number of results for a request, I see no > way to ask for the "next n", which I think is a commom requirement, Yes, another comment gave "give me the 1st 10 blorts..." as a use case, and the WG found it sufficiently appealing to add it to our use cases... http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-dawg-uc/#u2.19 Building a Table of Contents along with a sorting objective... http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-dawg-uc/#d4.11 Sorting Results > and one > that I think is much more easily accommodated in the query protocol than in > the query language. Our latest WD includes ORDER BY in the QL... http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-rdf-sparql-query-20050419/#solutionsResults The relevant issue is not quite closed.. http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#sort but very nearly so... sort issue ready to close, right? [was: more sorting test cases] Dan Connolly (Monday, 9 May) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2005AprJun/0218.html -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E see you at XTech in Amsterdam 24-27 May?Received on Thursday, 12 May 2005 14:13:07 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:14:48 GMT