W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > July to September 2005

Re: Updated SPARQL Query Results XML Format draft

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 16:24:49 +0100
Message-ID: <42D53241.30308@hp.com>
To: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
CC: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>



Steve Harris wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 02:59:45 +0100, Dave Beckett wrote:
> 
>>However, I've also noticed a couple of items in Red Ink that still need
>>thinking about:
>>
>>1. How/if to record duplicates in results. (Section 2.3.3)
>>
>>When ORDER BY is given, the result format may record index="1",
>>index="2" on the <result> element.  (Side issue - "may" or "should" do
>>this?)
> 
> 
> I dont see the point to this really, but how does it interact with OFFSET?
> Shouldn't the count start from OFFSET + 1?

I suggest that the indexes in the result file do not relate to the rows prior to 
limit/offset - they are there just to provide an ordering on the solutions. 
Start at 1, and are sequential.

Ideally, the result set should be in the order 1,2,3,...

>  
> 
>>However when there are duplicates should it generate indexes 1, 2, 2, 3
>>where items #2 and #3 are duplicates?  (A query with ORDER BY but no
>>SELECT DISTINCT).
> 
> 
> Strong "no" from me. Any numbering should be monotonic.

+1
Whether the query processor has applied a total ordering or not should not be 
reflected in the results (if it matters, use <link/>).

> 
> - Steve 
> 

	Andy
Received on Wednesday, 13 July 2005 15:25:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:23 GMT