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

Re: Draft response to GK-1

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 10:33:06 +0000
Cc: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <EDD050B3-E88B-4B5B-B0D6-2BB974C215C1@garlik.com>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
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 GMT

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