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

Re: Draft Response to ED-1

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 07:39:00 +0100
Message-ID: <4B764904.7060906@w3.org>
To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
CC: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@talis.com>, "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>


On 2010-2-12 17:13 , Steve Harris wrote:
> We did already discuss a very similar design, put forward by Eric P.,
> there wasn't much enthusiasm from the group at that time.

Ah, I did/do not remember that. Maybe I was not there...

Ivan

> 
> People may have changed their minds of course.
> 
> - Steve
> 
> On 12 Feb 2010, at 10:28, Ivan Herman wrote:
> 
>> 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
>>
> 

-- 

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



Received on Saturday, 13 February 2010 06:36:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:41 GMT