- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 22:33:44 +0100
- To: "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 31 Aug 2009, at 18:58, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
> In the grammar [1], I didn’t put in syntax for custom aggregates.
> I'm assuming that the ability to be able to specify a URI for an
> aggregate function is a useful extension point.
>
> An aggregate in SPARQL is a function that takes a set of query
> solutions and produces one or more values query solutions which
> include the group by variables and any aggregate variable/values.
> It's "or more" for the case of MIN() returning an answer for the MIN
> number, the MIN string, MIN dateTime - it would be one row for each
> possibility for each group.
The "or more" thing concerns me. I remember the group discussing this,
but I don't believe that we came to a consensus.
What would be the expected behaviour given
SELECT min(?x) min(?y) min(?z) { ... }
where x, y, and z each take some subset of numbers, dates etc? Also
unknown datatypes pose a problem.
> Two options occur to me for the syntax for aggregates:
>
> 1/ They look just like function calls:
>
> SELECT my:aggregate(arg1, arg2, ...) { ... } GROUP BY ?x
>
> The catch is that the prohibition about aggregates not in the
> pattern filters can't determined merely by parsing. The parser
> needs to know if a call is a function or an aggregate at parse time.
That seems like a reasonable price.
- Steve
--
Steve Harris
Garlik Limited, 2 Sheen Road, Richmond, TW9 1AE, UK
+44(0)20 8973 2465 http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10
9AD
Received on Monday, 31 August 2009 21:34:21 UTC