- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@talis.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 18:28:29 +0000
- To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
My undersatnding is that this query projects only ?totalPrice as an aggregation, not as a function. An aggregate is not a function in this sense. The prohibition covers SELECT ?totalPrice or SELECT (?totalPrice/1.6 AS ?priceUKP) or SELECT datatype(?totalPrice) not SELECT (datatype(sum(?lPrice)) AS ?example), ?org Andy 2009/11/5 Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>: > Just browsing over the example again and rethinking our discussion regarding > implicit grouping... > > PREFIX <http://books.example/> > SELECT SUM(?lprice) AS ?totalPrice > WHERE { > ?org :affiliates ?auth . > ?auth :writesBook ?book . > ?book :price ?lprice > } > GROUP BY ?org > HAVING (SUM(?lprice) > 10) > > > has ungrouped variables book, auth...Looking at our resolution, I honestly > don't get my head around the semantics here: > > "Consensus on prohibiting projecting variables/functions on variables that > are not included in the group by clause. Details are pending discussion of > ISSUE-41." > > That doesn't seem to cover this case, where there are ungrouped variables > that *don't* appear in projections or scalar functions. > Obviously, that query doesn't becomes weird if there are more than one > authors from the same org, or if there are several prices for the same book. > > Opinions to resolve? > > best, > Axel > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. > For more information please visit > http://www.messagelabs.com/email______________________________________________________________________ >
Received on Thursday, 5 November 2009 18:29:10 UTC