- From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 22:37:03 -0500
- To: Adrian Walker <adriandwalker@gmail.com>
- CC: 'RDF Data Access Working Group' <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Adrian Walker wrote: > Andy -- > > [apologies for cross posting -- this seems, well, important] > > You wrote... > > The working group is just finishing up so "official" [syntax and > semantics for SPARQL aggregation] will have to wait for rechartering. > > SQL made the mistake of not standardizing the semantics of aggregation, > and it seems a shame that SPARQL is going down the same road. In > particular, it makes it difficult to automatically generate SQL or > SPARQL queries from higher level stuff. > > Is there anyone in W3C who can be persuaded that this is a higher > priority item? > > Cheers, -- Adrian [trimmed jena-dev] Hi Adrian, Thanks for your comment. There is a significant amount of support in the SPARQL user and implementor community for the feeling that aggregates are an important feature not in the current SPARQL specification. The issue of aggregates in SPARQL, including count, is on the Working Group's issue list and has been resolved as a postponed issue since June of 2005. Please see: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#countAggregate . Count and aggregates has come up numerous times and the Working Group has declined to reconsider it due to schedule concerns. The SPARQL Query Language for RDF is currently a W3C Proposed Recommendation, and as such is undergoing a Call for Review of the W3C membership. I do not see new information here for the Working Group to reconsider it, especially as reconsideration at this time would cost the group several months. I do sympathize with your concerns: I'm intending to do my best help encourage active discussion amongst SPARQL users and developers about extension features on the public-sparql-dev@w3.org mailing list once this Working Group's work wraps up (likely in January). It's my hope that this will keep implementations of features not in the current SPARQL specification relatively similar, and will ease the path for future standardization efforts. thanks, Lee PS Please direct future feedback to the public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org list. This public-rdf-dawg@w3.org is a working-group-members only list intended for Working Group discussion. Thanks.
Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2007 03:37:21 UTC