Re: syntax for the algebra - or "shortcuts" for subselect

That's fair enough, particularly given our time line. I'd still wanted it recorded and frankly be kind of in 
favor to record this as an ISSUE to probably postpone for a future WG...

Axel



On 11 Aug 2010, at 13:10, Andy Seaborne wrote:

> On 11/08/10 10:50, Axel Polleres wrote:
> > (sorry, previous message was unfinished)
> >
> > Had this in my mind for a while... but didn't have a chance to write it down yet:
> > Along the discussions around BIND, I am thinking about why only decoupling project expressions
> > but not also operators in the algebra that are syntactically bound to (sub)select at the moment, namely:
> 
> We went through a process to decide on what the WG would address and no
> new evidence has come in (aside from the comment of generalized
> aggregation which we decided to note and stick with what we have got).
> 
> Had we been starting from scratch (and what we have learned from SPARQL
> in-action particualr the common reading of lexical top-to-bottom reading
> of queries), a syntax that didn't scramble the different operations and
> present them in a jumbled order would be something I'd advocate.
> 
> But we're not starting from scratch.  There is some value for the
> familiar of the SQL approach, even if it is a bit weird.
> 
> Existing implementations have followed SQL's style in their extension
> syntax.
> 
>         Andy
>

Received on Wednesday, 11 August 2010 17:16:41 UTC