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

Re: HAVING vs. FILTER (was: Re: Views on the outcomes of F2F)

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 08:18:04 +0100
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <05742F2E-FAE9-4BF9-BB78-B53C898132EB@deri.org>
To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@talis.com>
One concern raised was IIRC why we need both if HAVING is anyway redundant by:

SELECT AGG(?X)
WHERE P 
GROUP BY G
HAVING R

 being equivalent to

{ SELECT AGG(?X)
WHERE P 
GROUP BY G }
FILTER R

which would HAVING really make the very same as FILTER in the end of th the day.
Can we confirm/decline this (conjectured) equivalence?


best,
Axel



On 13 Nov 2009, at 05:35, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:

> Andy Seaborne wrote:
> > Here is my initial take on what appears to have been a successful
> > face-to-face meeting.  A lot has been moved forward.
> >
> > Lee asked for specific issues to be raised one per email thread so
> > please change the subject if you reply to anything specifically.
> 
> I'll follow my own advice.
> 
> >  > **  ISSUE-12: HAVING vs. FILTER as keyword for limiting
> >  > aggregate results
> >  >
> >  > General consensus in favor of using "FILTER" as the keyword,
> >  > with bglimm preferring "HAVING".
> >
> > I prefer HAVING because familiarity with SQL.
> >
> > Having both is acceptable.
> 
> There was a strong feeling at the F2F that having both was a bad idea.
> I'm completely happy with the idea of a group straw poll on this and
> then go with clear majority or leave it up to the editors.
> 
> 
> Lee
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 13 November 2009 07:18:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:40 GMT