W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2010

Re: issue round-up, part 1

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 13:55:56 +0100
Cc: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@talis.com>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <77C1BBA7-C34C-42C6-A754-29A33114EF75@garlik.com>
To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
On 2010-05-18, at 01:49, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:

> On 5/17/2010 6:11 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-5, ISSUE-6, ISSUE-7, and ISSUE-13 with no change,
>>> noting that SPARQL 1.1 will only allow SELECT subqueries within the
>>> query pattern.
>> 
>> Agree to close on the understanding that "ASK queries in FILTERs" are
>> covered by EXIST/NOT EXISTS in FILTERs.
> 
> Right, this was my intention/understanding as well.

What does "covered by" mean in this case?

>>> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-8 with the consensus that subqueries share the
>>> same RDF dataset as their parent query, and that FROM and FROM NAMED
>>> clauses are not permitted in subqueries.
>> 
>> Agreed with the understanding that active graph of the outer query is is
>> the initial active graph of the subquery.
> 
> I'm (personally) fine with this -- let's discuss it briefly before resolving tomorrow.

+1

>>> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-14 with the consensus that SPARQL 1.1 defines the
>>> following aggregates: COUNT, SUM, MIN, MAX, AVG, GROUP_CONCAT, and
>>> SAMPLE.
>> 
>> Agreed.

+1

- Steve

-- 
Steve Harris, Garlik Limited
1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
+44 20 8439 8203  http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
Received on Tuesday, 18 May 2010 13:03:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:42 GMT