- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 19:29:11 +0000
- To: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
- Cc: Government Linked Data Working Group <public-gld-wg@w3.org>
On 4 Mar 2013, at 15:08, Dave Reynolds wrote: > On 02/03/13 19:30, Richard Cyganiak wrote: >> qb:order on components within a dataset must be consecutive integers starting with 1 > > Do you regard qb:order as mandatory? No. I wasn't very clear. I only meant that those values that are provided (which may be zero values) must be consecutive and 1-based. However... > In the current text we say "may be ordered by ..." so I have always regarded this as optional. Which makes this check odd. > > In other applications where I have an ordering predicate I've generally found it preferable to allow orderings to be sparse, makes them easier to manage. You are right. I find this aesthetically unpleasing, but it's sufficient for the use case. > I'd like to propose that the only well-formedness check on qb:order be that they must be integers (which is already implied by the datatype checking). Agreed. Richard
Received on Monday, 4 March 2013 19:29:39 UTC