- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 16:08:04 +0000
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@talis.com>
- Cc: "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
I believe that it's equivalent to Eric's proposal, which was on the table for a while, but I admit I didn't dig into it too far. Your right that it allows you to do the same thing with less bytes, but I don't think it offers additional features, does it? - Steve On 11 Feb 2010, at 14:05, Andy Seaborne wrote: > 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. >> -- Steve Harris, Garlik Limited 2 Sheen Road, Richmond, TW9 1AE, UK +44 20 8973 2465 http://www.garlik.com/ Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11 Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
Received on Friday, 12 February 2010 16:08:40 UTC