- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 10:33:06 +0000
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Cc: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 2011-02-14, at 09:34, Andy Seaborne wrote: > > On 14/02/11 09:17, Axel Polleres wrote: >> Hi steve, >> >> On 8 Feb 2011, at 16:31, Steve Harris wrote: >> > ... >> >>> He raises a reasonable point about the interaction of ORDER BY, >>> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/rq25.xml#convertSolMod >>> could be construed as meaning that ORDER is preserved in aggregate >>> operations, though the algebra does say it's operations on >>> multisets. >> >> Is this something that needs to be discussed? Could an alternative >> behaviour to the current one be achieved with reasonable effort and >> the time/resources we still have? > > This relates to Jeen's point about GROUP_CONCAT and ORDER BY > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2011Feb/0004.html > > Maybe we should add "; ORDER BY" to GROUP_CONCAT. ; ORDER BY (and ; LIMIT) would be very useful, but on the other hand, I'm thinking that aggregates are quite complex as it is. - 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 Monday, 14 February 2011 10:33:41 UTC