- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 18:33:10 +0100
- To: Bruce D'Arcus <bdarcus@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org, Richard Newman <rich@holygoat.co.uk>, Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Bruce D'Arcus wrote: > Hi Andy, > > On Aug 21, 2005, at 11:39 AM, Seaborne, Andy wrote: > >>> FWIW, my application (currently XML/XSLT oriented) is citation >>> processing. If I want a bibliography list in the form ... >>> Doe, J. (1999a) ... >>> ——— . (1999b) ... >>> ———. (2000) ... >>> .... I need to group and sort by author, then year. >> >> >> Bruce - could you expand on the need for GROUP BY in this specific >> example? I don't see where an aggregate function is being used. >> >> In particular, in what way does sorting by author then by year not >> achieve the effect of placing entries in the order described? SPARQL >> does have "ORDER BY" > > > Because I need to count the number of results in an author-year group. > If there are more than one, I then need to number them (using a > letter). That's why "2000" does not have a suffix, but the two 1999s do. > > Likewise, I need to be able to replace the name with the three em-dashes > for all but the first in the author group. > > So it helps to have the results sorted, but that's not enough, and it's > a hassle if I then need to use XSLT (particularly 1.0) to do the > additional processing. > > I'll add that grouping is a common problem issue on the XSLT list, and > the new grouping support in XSLT 2.0 arguably the most useful new feature. > > Bruce Hi Bruce, Thanks for the clarification. There seem to be two things going on - the counting within groups and some transformation of the results. Andy
Received on Sunday, 21 August 2005 17:33:19 UTC