- From: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
- Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 00:17:00 -0400
- To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Cc: "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Aug 28, 2009, at 1:22 PM, Seaborne, Andy wrote: > It includes: > > + GROUP BY/HAVING [17], [18], [19], [20] This had come up briefly in an early telecon, but is there a reason to prefer 'HAVING' to 'FILTER', the keyword we've already got for this sort of thing? .greg
Received on Sunday, 30 August 2009 04:17:43 UTC