- From: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 12:08:05 +0100
- To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 11:59:10AM +0100, Andy Seaborne wrote: > >>Maybe you just need to know that the results are ordered - i.e. an > >>isOrdered boolean flag. Is isDistinct also needed? Those seem to be > >>the two crucial flags that tell you the four forms of variable bindings > >>results you can get: > >> 1. a bag (the default) > >> 2. an ordered sequence (ORDER BY) > >> 3. an ordered sequence with no duplicates (ORDER BY + DISTINCT) > >> 4. a set (DISTINCT) > > > > > >Maybe, I'm not clear on any situations where the client might not know, and > >would care. > > The only cases I see as being important in the result set > > DISTINCTness is detectable in the results whereas ordering is not. > > How about an optional attribute to the <results> element. > > <results order="true"> > > Then there is no consistency issue about funny index orders, missing > indexes, or duplicates. > > The next complexity level would be to number the variable declarations in > the header indicating the order of the variables but that does not make > sense for function ordering. So, just an indication in the <results> > element seems fine, if anything at all. Why optional? order="false" seems pretty reasonable, and optional things just make processing harder. - Steve
Received on Thursday, 14 July 2005 11:08:41 UTC