Re: Agenda SPARQL TC 2010-02-09

I agree with all but ISSUE-12... so let's propose some resolutions:


PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-3 with the consensus that subqueries do not
require a special "subquery keyword" but need to be put in mandatory
curly braces


ISSUE-4: agreed...

PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-4 with the consensus that only projected variables have scope outside a subquery.


ISSUE-36: agreed...

PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-36 by disallowing projected with the same name
as an existing variable (throwing a static error).



ISSUE-12: hmmm...
IIRC, the last discussion we had about that ended in that 

{SELECT S
WHERE W
GROUP BY G
HAVING F}

ist just the same as 

{SELECT S
WHERE W
GROUP BY G
} FILTER F

That's why I am still hesitant to use HAVING instead of just FILTER as
a keyword. At least, I still am not convinced that introducing another
keyword is useful here. I think the dispute of the issue is still just
the used keyword itself, isn't it? Do we have a resolution confirming
to use HAVING? I remember this being the last state of discussion,
where no real agreement was reached:
http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-11-02#line0255
Let me know if I miss some later findings on that from the list or from a later call.

best,
Axel



On 9 Feb 2010, at 09:18, Andy Seaborne wrote:

> 
> 
> On 08/02/2010 8:09 AM, Axel Polleres wrote:
> >       • Any updates on F2F3?
> >       • Query Issues:
> >               • Andy's Summary
> >               • Discussion on issue-29
> >               • Discussion on issue-35
> >       • Test suite / test cases
> >       • On the deck:
> >               • SD issues: Greg's summary
> >               • ENT issues: Birte's summary
> 
> We could try to close some of these issues which Steve and I picked out
> as having consensus as far as we knew.
> 
> We won't do all of them but we could try for 3,4,12,36
> 
> 
> ISSUE-3
> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/3
> 
> ISSUE-4
> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/4
> 
> ISSUE-12
> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/12
> 
> ISSUE-36
> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/36
> 
> 
> 
>         Andy
> 
> More complete list from the emails:
> 
> 
>  > ISSUE-3
>  > Subquery syntax (e.g. mandatory curly braces
>  > DONE - use {}
> 
>  > http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/3
>  > Subquery syntax (e.g. mandatory curly braces)
>  > - I've not heard anyone speaking against braces recently.
> 
>  > ISSUE-4
>  > What is the variable scope between main queries and subqueries
>  > DONE - join scoping subject to projection.
> 
>  > http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/4
>  > What is the variable scope between main queries and subqueries?
>  > - Only projected variables have scope outside a subquery.
> 
> 
>  > ISSUE-8
>  > What determines the RDF dataset for subqueries?
>  > DONE - Same as outer query - no FROM in subqueries.
> 
>  > ISSUE-12
>  > Presence and syntactic detail of HAVING clause
>  > DONE (it's like a FILTER with the word HAVING)
> 
>  > http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/12
>  > Presence and syntactic detail of HAVING clause
>  > - Seems consensus on the post-aggregate FILTER being called.
> 
>  > ISSUE-36
>  > What happens when expressions are projected with the same name as an
>  > existing variable?
>  > DONE Current doc proposes this is a static error.
> 
>  > http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/36
>  > What happens when expressions are projected with the same name as an
>  > existing variable?
>  > - Seems consensus on it being an error.
> 
>  > ISSUE-39
>  > Can variable used as aliases for expressions be themselves used in other
>  > expressions?
>  > DONE
>  > Scope starts at point of definition - can use to the right and outer
> scope.
> 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 9 February 2010 12:18:50 UTC