- From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 22:49:36 +0100
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org, Leigh Dodds <leigh@ldodds.com>
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 15:08:16 -0600, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote: > > > Is it the case then that Sparql will not include an ORDER BY or > > similar clause? If not, then would it be possible to elaborate > > why? > > We adopted a LIMIT requirement over an objection (details below), but > sorting has never had a critical mass of support. It competes with > streaming results (http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/UseCases#r3.12 > ). We haven't discussed any designs for sorting. I don't understand why sorting should compete with streaming - isn't the transport at a different layer than order? > You're welcome to elaborate on why you think it's important/required. > Use cases are particularly welcome, especially use cases that argue for > handling sorting in SPARQL rather than in a downstream component or > client or XSLT engine or the like. Use case: obtain a given number of most-recent items from a triplestore-based RSS aggregator. (Something along the lines of http://pubsub.com which aggregates data from several million feeds - they use ASN.1 internally btw, though expose XML interfaces). I may be missing something, but the most natural way I can think of doing this is using a combination of ORDER BY and LIMIT. Cheers, Danny. -- http://dannyayers.com
Received on Tuesday, 8 March 2005 21:49:38 UTC