Re: Views on the outcomes of F2F

On 10/11/2009 20:18, Steve Harris wrote:
 > We're explicitly not chartered to do assignment - if that makes sense -
 > somewhat tortured English. We voted on a list of things to be in the
 > charter, and assignment was on the list that didn't make it.
> You could regard it as syntactic sugar for subselect + project
> expressions, but that doesn't appear to be what Holger is after, and
> it's a little sophisitic to argue that IMHO.

We have now have had feedback that the assumption that SELECT expression 
syntax is not sufficient.  We can respond to comments.

I believe Holger is asking for nothing more than syntactic sugar.
Jeremy's syntactic conversion from LET to SELECT expressions shows what 
they want and it's a syntactic rewrite even SPARQL syntax to SPARQL syntax.

We know LET->SELECT and SELECT->LET as syntatic transforms.. There is no 
new functionality (it does not change the algebra at all); it's all in 
the syntax to algebra translation step, which is what I consider 
syntactic suger.

I understand the comment as a request to make it easier to use by 
exposing the assignment part of AS without the project interactions - 
i.e. less verbose than SELECT *, (?x+?y AS ?z) without the pain of 
needing to get the "*" right; better appearance for usse when there are 
several assignments.


What do you think Holger is asking for?
In what way does it fall outside syntactic sugar?
    I would find a concrete example we can discuss helpful.
Do you have a different definition of syntactic sugar?

	Andy

Received on Tuesday, 10 November 2009 21:26:41 UTC