Re: Draft Response to ED-1

The question is whether we should 'keep the door open' for Emanuele's
design until the f2f and try to find some time to discuss there. I am
not fully convinced of the value of always referring back to SQL (eg, I
am not an SQL user, so this argument does not resonate for me) and I did
find value in Emanuele's design which, in some way, might be more
succinct than what we have...

I do not want to put up a fight for this alternative design, but I would
not want to give the impression to dismiss it too lightly

Ivan

On 2010-2-11 15:05 , Andy Seaborne wrote:
> I think we need to recognize that Emanuele's design is not just about
> syntax and it allows for things that can't be done in SPARQL 1.1 without
> duplication of patterns (e.g. multiple aggregates over the same pattern).
> 
> While it's attractive to be able to do such thing, on balance, I don't
> propose we address such functionality in this round.
> 
>     Andy
> 
> On 11/02/2010 10:08, Steve Harris wrote:
>> c.f.
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2010Feb/0006.html
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Emanuele,
>>
>> Thanks for your comment regarding the SPARQL 1.1 working draft syntax
>> for aggregate operations.
>>
>> The working group did consider an aggregate design similar to the one
>> you propose while discussing the various syntax options.
>>
>> However, the overall opinion of the group was that the familiarity of
>> the SQL-style aggregate operations was of a greater benefit than the
>> terseness of the syntax.
>>
>> - Steve Harris, on behalf of the SPARQL WG.
>>
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF   : http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
vCard  : http://www.ivan-herman.net/HermanIvan.vcf