Re: SPARQL Aggregation Consensus?

Adrian Walker wrote:
> Hi All --
> 
> Is there a consensus emerging please on the syntax and semantics* of 
> SPARQL aggregation over RDF?
> 
> If I understand correctly, there are some implementations doing their 
> own things, but as yet no standard.
> 
> If that's indeed the case, is there a timeline for a standard?
> 
> Surely, SPARQL should avoid the multi-vendor situation that  SQL got in 
> to on this matter?
> 
> Thanks for educating me about this,    -- Adrian
> 
> * Semantics as in, ideally, a model theory that says what the result of 
> any aggregation must be.  

One way to define the results would be to extend the SPARQL algebra with 
group/aggregation.  Not a model theory - but it would define the results of an 
aggregation.

	Andy


> 
> Internet Business Logic
> A Wiki and SOA Endpoint for Executable Open Vocabulary English
> Online at www.reengineeringllc.com <http://www.reengineeringllc.com>    
> Shared use is free

-- 
Hewlett-Packard Limited
Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England