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

Re: Definition: Group in query editor's draft

From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 08:54:55 -0400
Message-ID: <4CA0941F.2060801@thefigtrees.net>
To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
CC: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 9/27/2010 8:20 AM, Steve Harris wrote:
> On 2010-09-23, at 08:36, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 22/09/10 06:59, Axel Polleres wrote:
>>> I have a small question about the Definition of "Group" in the query draft:
>>>
>>> "Group((),&Omega;) = { 1 ->   &Omega; }"
>>>
>>> ... shouldn't that be:
>>>
>>> "Group((),&Omega;) = { () ->   &Omega; }"
>>>
>>> i.e., what is the 1 supposed to mean?
>>
>> The 1 is any key.  When the set of groups keys is the empty, which happnes for
>>
>> SELECT (count(*) AS ?c) { ?s ?p ?o }
>>
>> then there needs to be a key value for the group.
>>
>> It could be said to be slightly more sense to be (1), not 1, as it's a list when then the key isn't empty.  The key just needs to be unique, and here, there is only one key so it's arbitrary.
>
> Yeah, I went for a non-list value so there was no possibility of it being the same as a "real" key, but it's perhaps not as clear as it should be.

Maybe it would be clearer if you used one of these guys?

http://unicodesnowmanforyou.com/

:-)

Lee
Received on Monday, 27 September 2010 12:55:32 GMT

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