Re: GROUP BY [ok?]

Dan Connolly wrote:
> 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?

Yes.

Note: I did not post the message to the list.  I sent a private email to 
Rich, who forwarded it to the list because he thought it appropriate 
(which was fine with me; it just explains why the mail wasn't in the 
form you were expecting).

> If you meant to request to consider a new
> requirement related to GROUP BY, would you please be more
> explicit? 

Well, OK, yes, I (an RDF novice I will add) think it'd be nice if SPARQL 
had GROUP BY support a la SQL.  I had simply assumed it'd been discussed 
and was possibly forthcoming and was asking for update.  Since it seems 
not to be the case, I think it should.

Anyone else agree?

> 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.
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 30 August 2005 18:31:50 UTC