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: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 17:15:22 +0000
Cc: "Andy Seaborne" <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, "SPARQL Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <39BF38EB-BFA6-45A5-9613-D59C656FA09A@garlik.com>
To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Agreed, that's better, so is everyone happy with http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:GK-1 as it stands now?

- Steve

On 2011-02-15, at 16:13, Axel Polleres wrote:

> I have added a sentence on the ISSUE we added and that we might not be able to address this 
> in the draft response at
>     http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:GK-1
> I'd suggest to answer now, rather than wait until we know whether we resolve the issue. 
> 
> Axel
> 
> On 14 Feb 2011, at 11:23, Steve Harris wrote:
> 
>> On 2011-02-14, at 10:59, Axel Polleres wrote:
>> 
>>> Related to the issue of ORDER in GROUP_CONCAT we had a mail thread starting at
>>> 
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010OctDec/0041.html
>>> 
>>> and ending at
>>> 
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2010Oct/0001.html
>>> 
>>> ... this was then discussed in the TC on 2010-10-26:
>>> 
>>> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-10-26#line0100
>>> 
>>> there we had a strawpoll on whether or not we want an order feature in GROUP_CONCAT...
>>> 
>>> Options for group_concat: 1) no order_by 2) simple order_by 3) full ordering by expressions (e.g. order by second letter of a word, etc.)
>>> 
>>> where a clear majority voted for 1), mainly because of concerns that anything else would not be doable with the remaining time/resources.
>>> 
>>> As far  as I understand, what is now being discussed is 3), correct? Back in october, no one voted for 3).
>>> Unless someone thinks we have substantial new information, I think we should stick with this position.
>>> 
>>> BTW: I just see that, on IRC, in that TC, Steve suggested to make a postponed issue out of it: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-10-26#line0133  but so far we haven't added it as an issue.
>> 
>> Right, I see this comment as further evidence that it's worth a (postponed) issue.
>> 
>> - 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
>> 
>> 
> 

-- 
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, 15 February 2011 17:15:57 GMT

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