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

Re: issue round-up, part 1

From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 10:15:37 -0400
Message-ID: <4BF2A109.8060202@thefigtrees.net>
To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
CC: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@talis.com>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 5/18/2010 8:55 AM, Steve Harris wrote:
> 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?

For me, it means that EXISTS/NOT EXISTS in FILTERs (as decided in the 
Web survey) covers the use cases that would have been covered by ASK 
subqueries in FILTER. That is: by resolving this issue in this way, 
we're not saying that we're not going to include EXIST/NOT EXISTS filters.

Lee

>>>> 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
>
Received on Tuesday, 18 May 2010 14:22:27 GMT

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