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

Re: another aggregates test case...

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@talis.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2010 15:04:46 +0100
Message-ID: <4C0E4DFE.8070905@talis.com>
To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
CC: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
I don't see why it needs to be an error - with no aggregation GROUP BY 
can be considered to be a a partial sort.  Cardinality same as without 
GROUP BY.  This also happens to be a requirement in some apps - results 
clustered by key but the same number of rows as without grouping. 
Sorting can make it so, but sorting is potentially more expensive.

	Andy

On 08/06/2010 2:20 PM, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
> I would expect this query to be an error, yes.
>
> I'd also be happy to define an aggregate query as any query in which:
>
> 1. A GROUP BY clause is present, OR
> 2. An aggregate is included in the query projection
>
> Lee
>
> On 6/8/2010 9:07 AM, Axel Polleres wrote:
>> Student of mine pointed me to a somewhat corner test case:
>>
>> PREFIX rdf:<http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#>
>> PREFIX rdfs:<http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#>
>> PREFIX dcterms:<http://purl.org/dc/terms/>
>> PREFIX foaf:<http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/>
>> PREFIX mpp:<http://imp.deri.ie/ontology/moviePostProcessing#>
>>
>> SELECT *
>> FROM NAMED<http://imp.deri.ie/vff/ppa/projects>
>> FROM NAMED<http://imp.deri.ie/vff/ppa/people>
>> WHERE {
>>
>> ?project rdf:type foaf:Project ;
>> rdfs:label ?title .
>> ?person rdf:type mpp:Person ;
>> rdfs:label ?personName ;
>> foaf:currentProject ?project .
>> }
>> GROUP BY ?project
>>
>> Actually, I *think* this should be syntactically invalid, as per:
>> "In aggregate queries and sub-queries only expressions which have been
>> used as GROUP BY expressions, or aggregated expressions (i.e.
>> expressions where all variables appear inside an aggregate) can be
>> projected."
>>
>> interestingly, the formulation - strictly speaking - doesn't say what
>> an aggregate query is, but GROUP BY without aggregtate doesn't make a
>> lot of sense anyways, except that it should have the same effect as
>> DISTINCT, right(?), but we still don't want to allow in the presence
>> of GROUP BY some non-grouped/aggregated things to be projected, I assume.
>>
>> Axel
>>
>
>
> Please consider the environment before printing this email.
>
> Find out more about Talis at http://www.talis.com/
> shared innovation™
>
> Any views or personal opinions expressed within this email may not be
> those of Talis Information Ltd or its employees. The content of this
> email message and any files that may be attached are confidential, and
> for the usage of the intended recipient only. If you are not the
> intended recipient, then please return this message to the sender and
> delete it. Any use of this e-mail by an unauthorised recipient is
> prohibited.
>
> Talis Information Ltd is a member of the Talis Group of companies and is
> registered in England No 3638278 with its registered office at Knights
> Court, Solihull Parkway, Birmingham Business Park, B37 7YB.
Received on Tuesday, 8 June 2010 14:13:34 GMT

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