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

Re: Query review, part 2 (ACTION-546)

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 09:56:40 +0000
Message-ID: <4EE9C458.2030804@epimorphics.com>
To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
CC: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>, public-rdf-dawg@w3.org

>> This might be a corner case, but I think it's possible, and so should probably be mentioned (or "the use of aggregates in the projection" simply generalized by removing "in the projection").
>
> Yes, but I can just add HAVING to the list of things that makes a query level implicitly aggregated, right?
>
> I've changed the text to:
>
> “If aggregates or HAVING are used in the query level, but the GROUP BY term is not used, then this is taken to be a single implicit group, to which all solutions belong.”

And ORDER BY.

I have the doc open I'll make the change (HAVING and ORDER BY are part 
of a query level so they don't need to be enumerated but I will put in 
text in the current style).

	Andy

>
> - Steve
>
Received on Thursday, 15 December 2011 09:57:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:47 GMT