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

Re: issue round-up, part 1

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 14:43:39 +0100
Cc: "SPARQL Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <29E73C55-83AB-4C3A-81EC-E90C471669BC@deri.org>
To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>

On 16 May 2010, at 20:22, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:

> (Part 1 goes through ISSUE-16. More to follow as I find time.)
> 
> I wanted to review our open issues and propose to close many of them.
> Please take a look at these and let us know if you disagree with any of
> the resolutions. Perhaps we'll try to make group decisions on these one
> week from Tuesday.
> 
> 
> 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.
> 

There is some interaction with the negation poll... I sugest to first close ISSUE-29:

 PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-29 noting that SPARQL 1.1 will include MINUS as a binary graph pattern operator and also include NOT EXISTS and EXISTS as FILTERs.

And then slight rewording on your proposed resolution:

 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 and within EXISTS filters.


> 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.

see discussion in other mails...

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

fine with me.

Axel

> 
> Lee
> 
> ~~Not Ready To Close Yet~~
> 
> ISSUE-1 -- will resolve once we settle on how to publish federated query
> down the road
> 
> ISSUE-15 -- I think we have consensus here around custom aggregate
> snamed with URIs, with no keywords, allowing the DISTINCT modifier, and
> allowing the parameterized syntax introduced for GROUP_CONCAT, but I'm
> not positve and don't see this spelled out yet in the editor's draft, so
> didn't want to propose to resolve the issue yet.
> 
> ISSUE-16 -- aggregates & mixed data types -- don't remember what the
> latest here is
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 18 May 2010 13:45:49 GMT

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