- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 13:55:56 +0100
- To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Cc: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@talis.com>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 2010-05-18, at 01:49, Lee Feigenbaum wrote: > On 5/17/2010 6:11 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote: >>> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-5, ISSUE-6, ISSUE-7, and ISSUE-13 with no change, >>> noting that SPARQL 1.1 will only allow SELECT subqueries within the >>> query pattern. >> >> Agree to close on the understanding that "ASK queries in FILTERs" are >> covered by EXIST/NOT EXISTS in FILTERs. > > Right, this was my intention/understanding as well. What does "covered by" mean in this case? >>> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-8 with the consensus that subqueries share the >>> same RDF dataset as their parent query, and that FROM and FROM NAMED >>> clauses are not permitted in subqueries. >> >> Agreed with the understanding that active graph of the outer query is is >> the initial active graph of the subquery. > > I'm (personally) fine with this -- let's discuss it briefly before resolving tomorrow. +1 >>> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-14 with the consensus that SPARQL 1.1 defines the >>> following aggregates: COUNT, SUM, MIN, MAX, AVG, GROUP_CONCAT, and >>> SAMPLE. >> >> Agreed. +1 - Steve -- Steve Harris, Garlik Limited 1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK +44 20 8439 8203 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 Tuesday, 18 May 2010 13:03:46 UTC