- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:07:09 +0000
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- CC: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Dan Connolly wrote: > On Mon, 2005-03-21 at 16:04 +0000, Seaborne, Andy wrote: > >>Matters arising from the comments list: > > [...] > >>2/ GROUP BY >> >>Request for SQL-like GROUP BY in addition to ORDER BY. GROUP BY allows the >>application of aggrgeate functions which is more problematic than ORDER BY (that >>only chnages the order of solutions, it does not remove, add or change >>solutions). It's use with aggregation functions like sum(), count() that is >>tricky because of defining what is being counted (names or individuals). >> >>COUNT() can lead to a significant decrease in network bandwidth but I have not >>seen a proposal as to what it means for RDF query that explciitly addresses the >>closed world assumptions. -1 Counting would need a lot more consideration before inclusion. Suggest we get a use case then add to postponed issues unless the use case is very compelling. Andy >> >> >> Andy > >
Received on Monday, 21 March 2005 17:07:53 UTC