This response seems fine to me. Lee On 2/11/2010 5:08 AM, Steve Harris wrote: > c.f. > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2010Feb/0006.html > > > --- > > Emanuele, > > Thanks for your comment regarding the SPARQL 1.1 working draft syntax > for aggregate operations. > > The working group did consider an aggregate design similar to the one > you propose while discussing the various syntax options. > > However, the overall opinion of the group was that the familiarity of > the SQL-style aggregate operations was of a greater benefit than the > terseness of the syntax. > > - Steve Harris, on behalf of the SPARQL WG. >Received on Thursday, 11 February 2010 13:55:56 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:01:01 UTC