W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: First attempt at a grammar for SPARQL/query 1.1

From: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 00:17:00 -0400
Cc: "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <CE7F60B5-DFE4-4BE6-8E8A-4D1C66AA7439@evilfunhouse.com>
To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
On Aug 28, 2009, at 1:22 PM, Seaborne, Andy wrote:

> It includes:
>
> + GROUP BY/HAVING [17], [18], [19], [20]

This had come up briefly in an early telecon, but is there a reason to  
prefer 'HAVING' to 'FILTER', the keyword we've already got for this  
sort of thing?

.greg
Received on Sunday, 30 August 2009 04:17:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:08:26 GMT