HAVING vs. FILTER (was: Re: Views on the outcomes of F2F)

• From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
• Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 23:35:59 -0500
• To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@talis.com>
• CC: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <4AFCE22F.2060000@thefigtrees.net>

Andy Seaborne wrote:
> Here is my initial take on what appears to have been a successful 
> face-to-face meeting.  A lot has been moved forward.
> 
> Lee asked for specific issues to be raised one per email thread so 
> please change the subject if you reply to anything specifically.

I'll follow my own advice.

>  > **  ISSUE-12: HAVING vs. FILTER as keyword for limiting
>  > aggregate results
>  >
>  > General consensus in favor of using "FILTER" as the keyword,
>  > with bglimm preferring "HAVING".
> 
> I prefer HAVING because familiarity with SQL.
> 
> Having both is acceptable.

There was a strong feeling at the F2F that having both was a bad idea. 
I'm completely happy with the idea of a group straw poll on this and 
then go with clear majority or leave it up to the editors.


Lee

Received on Friday, 13 November 2009 04:36:43 UTC