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 14:46:24 +0100
Cc: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
Message-Id: <613ADF2E-DE13-4AE4-BCEE-677A62102EEF@deri.org>
To: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

On 18 May 2010, at 14:43, Axel Polleres wrote:

> 
> 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.

Sorry, to be correct on ISSUE-13 that should be:

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 and HAVING clauses.

? Any issues with allowing (NOT) EXISTS in HAVING? 

Axel

> 
> 
>> 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 13:46:57 GMT

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