Re: Updated SPARQL Query Results XML Format draft

Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
> Andy Seaborne wrote on 07/13/2005 11:24:49 AM:
>  
> 
>>Steve Harris wrote:
> 
> 
>>>>When ORDER BY is given, the result format may record index="1",
>>>>index="2" on the <result> element.  (Side issue - "may" or "should" do
>>>>this?)
>>>
>>>
>>>I dont see the point to this really, but how does it interact with 
> 
> OFFSET?
> 
>>>Shouldn't the count start from OFFSET + 1?
>>
>>I suggest that the indexes in the result file do not relate to the 
>>rows prior to 
>>limit/offset - they are there just to provide an ordering on the 
> 
> solutions. 
> 
>>Start at 1, and are sequential.
>>
>>Ideally, the result set should be in the order 1,2,3,...
> 
> 
> You're suggesting that the indexes are there to allow the server to build 
> the
> XML results in any order and have the client rearrange them?

Not really - I was working with the indexes that the XML Results doc describes. 
Reading the rest of the messages on this theme, I'm inclined to drop indexes and 
use the XML ordering, with a single flag to indicate that the result set is 
considered ordered.

	Andy

 >
  I feel that
> that
> puts an unnecessary burden on the client and provides little benefit for 
> the
> server which must still calculate the proper indexes. 
> 
> Is there a use case that drives this decision?
> 
> 
>>>>However when there are duplicates should it generate indexes 1, 2, 2, 
> 
> 3
> 
>>>>where items #2 and #3 are duplicates?  (A query with ORDER BY but no
>>>>SELECT DISTINCT).
>>>
>>>
>>>Strong "no" from me. Any numbering should be monotonic.
>>
>>+1
>>Whether the query processor has applied a total ordering or not should 
> 
> not be 
> 
>>reflected in the results (if it matters, use <link/>).
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> Lee
>

Received on Thursday, 14 July 2005 10:50:09 UTC