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

Re: limit per resource rethought...

From: Paul Gearon <gearon@ieee.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 10:06:25 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTikhiLTQYMAXHpJhLYac192MpZca39sa9FB_qm8-@mail.gmail.com>
To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Cc: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Hi Alex,

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 8:16 AM, Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org> wrote:
<snip/>

> On the one hand, the specific use case might be viewed as new information, so it might be
> ok to reopen issues, such as ISSUE-6.
>
> On the other hand, it all depends, I don't really know whether others also consider this use case as such valid for
> this round of SPARQL or exotic... Personally, I somehow had the (wrong) understanding that "LIMIT per resource"
> would also allow me to do this kind of queries, only now realising that it is orthogonal to the original "LIMIT
> per resource" use case.
>
> So:
>  1) Do we consider these kinds of queries (let's call them "orthogonal LIMIT per resource") relevant enough?
>  2) If yes, which way to go? (it seems there'd be at least two extensions of the current subquery mechanism on the table to allow that)

I've been viewing this thread with academic interest, and, of course,
I've even contributed by pointing out that there are queries (not just
limit-per-resource) which can be well served by having a sub-query
executed per solution-binding of the outer query. However, my interest
here has been purely academic.

While I think this is a worthwhile discussion about useful features, I
also think that it goes beyond the scope of the current working group.
 We're supposed to be in the final phase of stabilizing the documents,
and we're already having to look to extend the charter.

There are numerous features that have missed the cut this time around,
some of which I am quite disappointed about, but I appreciate the
practical reasons for limiting the charter. Unless there are
significantly compelling reasons for a feature like this, then I
suggest that the current discussion not be directed towards modifying
the current documents.

Regards,
Paul Gearon
Received on Friday, 13 August 2010 14:06:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:43 GMT