- From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 12:50:50 +0100
- To: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
In: http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-rdf-sparql-query-20050217/ I'm unconvinced that it is appropriate for a LIMIT clause to be part of the query language. Among other things, it apparently has the effect of making a query indeterminate against some given source data, which doesn't seem to be a desirable property. Also, IIRC, there is a functional overlap here with the query protocol, which also specifies a result limit. Limiting the number of results would appear to be a purely operational matter of optimizing resource usage, and as such it seems to me that limiting the result set is more appropriately dealt with as part of the protol. Also, when limiting the number of results for a request, I see no way to ask for the "next n", which I think is a commom requirement, and one that I think is much more easily accommodated in the query protocol than in the query language. #g ------------ Graham Klyne For email: http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Friday, 8 April 2005 11:49:02 UTC