- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 10:18:10 -0600
- To: Fred Zemke <fred.zemke@oracle.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
On Thu, 2006-01-12 at 17:23 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote: > On Thu, 2006-01-12 at 13:42 -0800, Fred Zemke wrote: > [...] > > This is of course analogous to subqueries and in-line views in SQL. > > The originators of SQL mistakenly believed that they did not need > > subqueries, so subqueries were not part of the original design. > > We didn't identify subqueries as one of our requirements either. > http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-dawg-uc/ > > but your request is well-made, complete with use case. > > I have forwarded it to the working group for consideration. Consideration of your use case did not yeild a critical mass of support. Arguments against adding this feature/requirement now included: [[ We have a number of related postponed issues including #cascadedQueries and #countAggregate. All these features would be good so the choice is going with the lesser and current v1 with the full expectation that a v2 will be needed, as against waiting until all features have been addressed. I believe we have a design that does not exclude the possibility (the syntax being the easier bit). ]] -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JanMar/0099.html and... [[ I see no great obstacles into allowing subqueries into SPARQL, but it must be recognized that the added implementation burden is significant. To me, the more logical route would be to recognize this as a useful feature and to postpone it, for now. I would also like to point out that there are more forms of subquerying than are sketched in the user's comments (for example, things like ANY and ALL modifiers, or the IN set membership operator) and I feel that if we decide to put this on the critical path, we should take a good look at all of these. Which is another good reason to postpone for now, IMHO. ]] -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JanMar/0097.html I have noted your comment under a relevant postponed issue http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#cascadedQueries I hope you find this response satisfactory; please let us know whether you do. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Wednesday, 25 January 2006 16:18:19 UTC