- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 08:48:51 -0500
- To: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, Richard Newman <rich@holygoat.co.uk>, Bruce D'Arcus <bdarcus@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
Taken literally, this thread seems to be questions about the
present SPARQL design... questions that seem to be answered.
Are the answers you've got sufficient?
If you meant to request to consider a new
requirement related to GROUP BY, would you please be more
explicit? We're in a rather formal part of the W3C process,
addressing last call comments; please excuse us if some
things seem a bit tedious.
Note that the WG has decided to postpone a related issue:
[[
countAggregate
other query languages have counting and other aggregate functions; these
are complicated in RDF due to open world notions of equality and
inequality.
* accepted in 2005-06-28 telconference discussion, following
comment from Das
* postponed in 2005-06-28 telconference discussion
]]
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#countAggregate
and we would need information that we haven't already discussed in order
to re-open that issue.
p.s. This thread isn't tracked by my current tools because they assume
threads don't start with "Re: ..." messages. I can make an exception
for this thread, but it'll make my life easier if it doesn't happen
again.
--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 30 August 2005 13:48:57 UTC