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

Re: another question on "SELECT *"

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 11:34:23 -0300
Cc: "Lee Feigenbaum" <lee@thefigtrees.net>, "SPARQL Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <07E149AD-B132-459B-9196-6DEC3508D2A6@deri.org>
To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
> My recollection is that we had a strawpoll and the majority were in favour of
> retaining the meaning of * from SPARQL 1.0. Could be wrong though.


Not sure what you mean here. I didn't suggest to deviate from the meaning of * as it is 
used in SPARQL1.0. Anyways, we have to clarify the ambiguities of the definitions of "*", 
see end of my other mail [1].

Axel

1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010OctDec/0090.html

On 14 Oct 2010, at 10:18, Steve Harris wrote:

> On 2010-10-14, at 13:33, Axel Polleres wrote:
> 
> > As for aggregates (mentioned by Andy), 
> >
> >  SELECT * (agg(Expr) AS ?var)
> >
> > could indeed make sense, taken that * implicitly projects all grouped variables
> > (following the definition of "potentially bound")
> 
> My recollection is that we had a strawpoll and the majority were in favour of retaining the meaning of * from SPARQL 1.0. Could be wrong though.
> 
> - Steve
> 
> --
> Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited
> 1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
> +44 20 8439 8203  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 Thursday, 14 October 2010 14:35:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:44 GMT