- From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 10:15:37 -0400
- To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- CC: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@talis.com>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 5/18/2010 8:55 AM, Steve Harris wrote: > 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? For me, it means that EXISTS/NOT EXISTS in FILTERs (as decided in the Web survey) covers the use cases that would have been covered by ASK subqueries in FILTER. That is: by resolving this issue in this way, we're not saying that we're not going to include EXIST/NOT EXISTS filters. Lee >>>> 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 >
Received on Tuesday, 18 May 2010 14:22:27 UTC