W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > October to December 2007

Re: [jena-dev] COUNT syntax

From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 22:37:03 -0500
Message-ID: <4754CB5F.4090902@thefigtrees.net>
To: Adrian Walker <adriandwalker@gmail.com>
CC: 'RDF Data Access Working Group' <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

Adrian Walker wrote:
> Andy --
> 
> [apologies for cross posting -- this seems, well, important]
> 
> You wrote...
> 
> The working group is just finishing up so "official" [syntax and 
> semantics for SPARQL aggregation] will have to wait for rechartering.
> 
> SQL made the mistake of not standardizing the semantics of aggregation, 
> and it seems a shame that SPARQL is going down the same road.  In 
> particular, it makes it difficult to automatically generate SQL or 
> SPARQL queries from higher level stuff.
> 
> Is there anyone in W3C who can be persuaded  that this is a higher 
> priority item?
> 
>                                     Cheers,  -- Adrian

[trimmed jena-dev]

Hi Adrian,

Thanks for your comment. There is a significant amount of support in the 
SPARQL user and implementor community for the feeling that aggregates 
are an important feature not in the current SPARQL specification.

The issue of aggregates in SPARQL, including count, is on the Working 
Group's issue list and has been resolved as a postponed issue since June 
of 2005. Please see: 
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#countAggregate .

Count and aggregates has come up numerous times and the Working Group 
has declined to reconsider it due to schedule concerns. The SPARQL Query 
Language for RDF is currently a W3C Proposed Recommendation, and as such 
is undergoing a Call for Review of the W3C membership. I do not see new 
information here for the Working Group to reconsider it, especially as 
reconsideration at this time would cost the group several months.

I do sympathize with your concerns: I'm intending to do my best help 
encourage active discussion amongst SPARQL users and developers about 
extension features on the public-sparql-dev@w3.org mailing list once 
this Working Group's work wraps up (likely in January). It's my hope 
that this will keep implementations of features not in the current 
SPARQL specification relatively similar, and will ease the path for 
future standardization efforts.

thanks,
Lee

PS Please direct future feedback to the public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org 
list. This public-rdf-dawg@w3.org is a working-group-members only list 
intended for Working Group discussion. Thanks.
Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2007 03:37:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:37 GMT