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 16:22:33 +0000
Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <47FD8C4A-AEA0-4BBB-870F-E120135E7E3E@garlik.com>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
The draft response has been updated at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:DBeckett-1

- Steve

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:
> 
> [[
> 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.
> 
> [[
> 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?
> 
> 
> [[
> 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.
> 
> 	Andy
> 

-- 
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 16:23:07 GMT

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