W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2011

Re: Response to DBeckett-1

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 16:17:29 +0000
Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <CB8FB3A2-F048-44C8-B68E-B428A3D74097@garlik.com>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
On 2011-02-08, at 14:55, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> 
> On 08/02/11 11:57, Steve Harris wrote:
>> I've updated the proposed response to include the new name for http-rdf-update:
>> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:DBeckett-1
>> 
>> Can some people please give it a once over and say if it's OK.
>> 
>> - Steve
> 
> Some of the text seems to have been overtaken since it was first written:

Ah, yes, thanks. I'll fix and repost.

> [[
> The Federated Query document will be incorporated into the main Query document in the next public version of the document.
> ]]
> 
> I think we're leaving federated query in its own document to show it's considered an optional feature.
> 
> ----
> [LeeF]: RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-1 by putting BINDINGS in the query document, and leaving the rest of the federated query work as its own specification
> 18 Jan 2011, 15:25:57
> ----
> 
> 
> [[
> The intention is to move the grammar out to a separate document, as it covers both Query and Update, as you've seen.
> ]]
> 
> is this true? It's not a bad idea - it's just I didn't know that was the plan - I thought we were leaving in rq25.  If it is to be separate, there's another document we need to prepare for LC.

Right, my understanding now is that it will be in rq25.

> [[
> II.
> 
> The execution of aggregates is indeed complex, and we will look to include something which explicitly sets out the order as specified in the document.
> ]]
> 
> Is this still true or has the passing of time meant it is now done?
> If it's not done, do we need an @@ for this or wiki entry? or is the algebra already addressing this?

I was thinking of what's currently 18.2.5 - I'm not sure if it's appropriate to point to a random editors drafts though?

> [[
> There is now a algorithmic sketch to show how Joining Aggregate Values should be applied to Solution Sequences.
> ]]
> 
> Context question: which piece of text is this referring to?  The section "Joining Aggregate Values" does not read as having an algorithm.

I was thinking of http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/rq25.xml#defn_algAggregateJoin

The text has moved since I wrote the original response. There's no easy non-URL way to respond to that bit of text.

- 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 Tuesday, 8 February 2011 16:18:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:45 GMT