- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 12:25:16 +0100
- To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- CC: dawg mailing list <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Steve Harris wrote: ... >> Subsidiary questions: >> >> If there is way to indicate "reduced", and the service >> implementation of REDUCED is to do "all" for this service request, >> can the service just omit the reduced because results are all present? >> >> If there is way to indicate "reduced", and the service >> implementation of REDUCED is to do DISTINCT? Is it permissible to >> set the 'distinct' attribute true? Woudl we recommended to doing so? > > FWIW, my preference is to not explicitly flag REDUCED result sets as > such. > > Whether the distinct attribute should be set where appropriate is an > interesting question. It also applies to SPARQL services that > currently implicitly DISTINCT. I don't see much use for a distinct attribute (I do see more utility for the 'ordered'). There never was anything stated about implicitly DISTINCT - I've always seen it as a local API issue where the local API inserts (or has the effect of inserting) DISTINCT into all queries. It was the case the test suite carefully didn't distinguish - except we let such a test case in which is what started all this latest stuff into motion. With the introduction of REDUCED, and the algebra, this all looks a bit more suspect. REDUCED is used when the query is unconcerned about cardinality. So, by implication only, SELECT without modifier is suggesting complete cardinality. Andy -- Hewlett-Packard Limited Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Monday, 26 March 2007 11:25:34 UTC