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

Re: Draft Response to ED-1

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 00:23:39 +0000
Cc: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@talis.com>, "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <6FFAE62B-9DA3-4063-9287-6321E3E0FC21@garlik.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
On 13 Feb 2010, at 06:39, Ivan Herman wrote:
>
> 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...

Doesn't look like it was ever discussed on the list, so I guess it  
must have been talked about face to face somewhere. Given that it  
probably makes sense to at least talk about the alternative syntax at  
a telecon.

- 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
>

-- 
Steve Harris, Garlik Limited
2 Sheen Road, Richmond, TW9 1AE, UK
+44 20 8973 2465  http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10  
9AD
Received on Sunday, 14 February 2010 00:24:11 GMT

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