- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@talis.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:05:06 +0000
- To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- CC: "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
I think we need to recognize that Emanuele's design is not just about syntax and it allows for things that can't be done in SPARQL 1.1 without duplication of patterns (e.g. multiple aggregates over the same pattern). While it's attractive to be able to do such thing, on balance, I don't propose we address such functionality in this round. Andy On 11/02/2010 10:08, 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 14:05:41 UTC