W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2012

DISTINCT()

From: Polleres, Axel <axel.polleres@siemens.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 10:48:52 +0100
To: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, "birte.glimm@uni-ulm.de" <birte.glimm@uni-ulm.de>
Message-ID: <9DA51FFE5E84464082D7A089342DEEE80137B3693AF2@ATVIES9917WMSX.ww300.siemens.net>
http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2012-03-13#line0075
 
--------------------

Birte Glimm: Do we really want to do this counting / non-counting operator distinction *and* to do DISTINCT 
... in 2 section on operators and DISTINCT it is not clear if these are alternatives to each other or complementary 

Andy Seaborne: * and + counting/non-counting versions (agreement on this)
... if we go with DISTINCT, we wouldn't need these operators. Useful to distinguish between applicable algorithms to use and syntax clarification 

Birte Glimm: going for both?

Andy Seaborne: yes, so far

--------------------

Just my two cents to emphasize that I tend to agree on that: I believe we need DISTINCT() to address JC-4 and related comments in a fashion agreeable to the commenters.


Small typo comment on the current editor's draft version, just as I stumbled over it:

s/
There are counting ({*}, {+}) and non-counting ({*}, {+}) forms of
operators for arbitrary length paths. 
/
There are counting ({*}, {+}) and non-counting (*, +) forms of
operators for arbitrary length paths. 
/ 


Best,
Axel


 
-- 
Dr. Axel Polleres 
Siemens AG Österreich 
Corporate Technology Central Eastern Europe Research & Technologies 
CT T CEE 
 
Tel.: +43 (0) 51707-36983 
Mobile: +43 (0) 664 88550859
Fax: +43 (0) 51707-56682 mailto:axel.polleres@siemens.com 
Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2012 09:49:26 GMT

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