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

Re: LIMIT clause in right place?

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 09:13:03 -0500
To: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>, public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <1115907183.13402.369.camel@localhost>

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