- From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 14:43:39 +0100
- To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Cc: "SPARQL Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <29E73C55-83AB-4C3A-81EC-E90C471669BC@deri.org>
On 16 May 2010, at 20:22, Lee Feigenbaum wrote: > (Part 1 goes through ISSUE-16. More to follow as I find time.) > > I wanted to review our open issues and propose to close many of them. > Please take a look at these and let us know if you disagree with any of > the resolutions. Perhaps we'll try to make group decisions on these one > week from Tuesday. > > > 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. > There is some interaction with the negation poll... I sugest to first close ISSUE-29: PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-29 noting that SPARQL 1.1 will include MINUS as a binary graph pattern operator and also include NOT EXISTS and EXISTS as FILTERs. And then slight rewording on your proposed resolution: 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 and within EXISTS filters. > 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. see discussion in other mails... > > PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-14 with the consensus that SPARQL 1.1 defines the > following aggregates: COUNT, SUM, MIN, MAX, AVG, GROUP_CONCAT, and SAMPLE. fine with me. Axel > > Lee > > ~~Not Ready To Close Yet~~ > > ISSUE-1 -- will resolve once we settle on how to publish federated query > down the road > > ISSUE-15 -- I think we have consensus here around custom aggregate > snamed with URIs, with no keywords, allowing the DISTINCT modifier, and > allowing the parameterized syntax introduced for GROUP_CONCAT, but I'm > not positve and don't see this spelled out yet in the editor's draft, so > didn't want to propose to resolve the issue yet. > > ISSUE-16 -- aggregates & mixed data types -- don't remember what the > latest here is > >
Received on Tuesday, 18 May 2010 13:45:49 UTC