- From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 14:46:24 +0100
- To: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
- Cc: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
On 18 May 2010, at 14:43, Axel Polleres wrote: > > 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. Sorry, to be correct on ISSUE-13 that should be: 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 and HAVING clauses. ? Any issues with allowing (NOT) EXISTS in HAVING? Axel > > >> 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 13:46:57 UTC