- From: Alex Miller <alex@puredanger.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 16:37:30 +0000
- To: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: Alex Miller <amiller@revelytix.com>, public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
Acknowledged... thanks. On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk> wrote: > Alex, > > Thank you for your comment about the SPARQL 1.1 Query specification. > > We agree that there was some inconsistency in the specification and > your observation about the wrong order of items at the beginning of > 18.2.4 is fixed in the current editors' draft, see > http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/rq25.xml#convertGroupAggSelectExpressions. > > We would be grateful if you would acknowledge that your comment has > been answered by sending a reply to this mailing list. > > Birte, on behalf of the SPARQL-WG > > On 3 November 2011 16:06, Alex Miller <amiller@revelytix.com> wrote: >> I've been puzzling over the SPARQL spec trying to determine the intent as to >> when the HAVING clause is executed. >> >> In particular, re section 18.2.4: >> http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/#convertGroupAggSelectExpressions >> >> The link above lists processing in the order of: Grouping, Aggregates, >> Bindings, Select exprs, and Having. >> However, the sub-sections of 18.2.4 are listed in the order of: Grouping and >> Aggregation, HAVING, BINDINGS, SELECT Expressions. Note that HAVING is >> listed in a different order than #1. >> In the Grouping and Aggregation section (18.2.4.1), the algorithm given >> shows the HAVING filters being executed at the end of the Grouping step. >> In the Having section (18.2.4.2) it says "Note that, due to the logic >> position in which the HAVING clause is evaluated, expressions projected by >> the SELECT clause are not visible to the HAVING clause." This seems to be >> in alignment with #2. >> >> #2-4 seem consistent and I thus conclude that the list at the beginning of >> 18.2.4 is ordered incorrectly and should say: >> >> Grouping >> Aggregates >> Having // moved from end >> Bindings >> Select exprs >> >> Have I correctly interpreted the intent? If so, can this issue be resolved >> in a future draft? >> >> Thanks, >> Alex Miller >> Revelytix >> > > > > -- > Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 309 > Department of Computer Science > University of Oxford > Parks Road > Oxford > OX1 3QD > United Kingdom > +44 (0)1865 283520 >
Received on Thursday, 8 December 2011 16:38:23 UTC