- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 12:07:31 +0000
- To: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- CC: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Kendall Clark wrote: > > On Jan 12, 2006, at 6:21 PM, Dan Connolly wrote: > >> This seems like a reasonably coherent argument for a new requirement, >> complete with rationale and use case. >> >> If you support this requirement and would like to see us add it >> to the critical path, please say so. > > I wanted subqueries in SPARQL since the beginning. However, I fear > that if we took this requirement on right now, SPARQL would die. So > I'm for this being a major priority in SPARQL version 2, if there's > going to be such a thing. > >> If not, please help me come up with justification that might >> satisfy the commentor. > > The best one I can think of: doing it *now* may kill the whole thing > dead. I agree - let's wrap up what we have, and ship it. 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). > Cheers, > Kendall Clark Andy
Received on Friday, 13 January 2006 12:07:45 UTC