Re: Requesting input for the Features and Rational document

Alexandre Passant wrote:
> material.
> Specifically, we ask you to focus on these holes in the current content:
> * ProjectExpression needs a better description and motivation.
> We feel that the mention of XSLT is not very relevant, as assigning a 
> name automatically, like some engines do now, is sufficient for XSLT.
> It should also be motivated by showing why it is required by other 
> features.

I took a stab at this at

> * Aggregates needs a description. As mentioned in today's telecon, it 
> must be generic enough to encompass all the things we may do.

I took a stab at this at

> * Subqueries is now described as subselects, and the description and 
> examples needs to reflect that we may have other query forms in the 
> subqueries (e.g ASK in subqueries).

The WG has open issues to determine precisely which types of subqueries 
the specification will include. The group does have consensus that 
subselects within graph patterns will be one such subquery included. For 
the purposes of F&R, I think that we should talk about subqueries in 

> * Negation. Is there any engine that support a NOT EXISTS implementation ?

Do you specifically mean using the keywords NOT EXISTS? I don't think we 
identified any during 

> Finally, there is a section in the document that calls for use cases 
> that require more than one of the new features, so that we motivate the 
> new features with concrete examples.
> We do not have that for the moment, so if someone can come up with some, 
> it would be great !
> Use cases can be recorded at

I also think this would improve the document, but I do not consider it 
absolutely essential.

Please do submit use cases (or pointers to existing ones) if you have 
any that motivate multiple of the new features.


> Thanks for your input !
> Best,
> Alex and Kjetil

Received on Thursday, 4 June 2009 06:47:11 UTC