- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 00:23:39 +0000
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@talis.com>, "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 13 Feb 2010, at 06:39, Ivan Herman wrote: > > On 2010-2-12 17:13 , Steve Harris wrote: >> We did already discuss a very similar design, put forward by Eric P., >> there wasn't much enthusiasm from the group at that time. > > Ah, I did/do not remember that. Maybe I was not there... Doesn't look like it was ever discussed on the list, so I guess it must have been talked about face to face somewhere. Given that it probably makes sense to at least talk about the alternative syntax at a telecon. - Steve >> On 12 Feb 2010, at 10:28, Ivan Herman wrote: >> >>> The question is whether we should 'keep the door open' for >>> Emanuele's >>> design until the f2f and try to find some time to discuss there. I >>> am >>> not fully convinced of the value of always referring back to SQL >>> (eg, I >>> am not an SQL user, so this argument does not resonate for me) and >>> I did >>> find value in Emanuele's design which, in some way, might be more >>> succinct than what we have... >>> >>> I do not want to put up a fight for this alternative design, but I >>> would >>> not want to give the impression to dismiss it too lightly >>> >>> Ivan >>> >>> On 2010-2-11 15:05 , 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. >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead >>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >>> mobile: +31-641044153 >>> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html >>> FOAF : http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf >>> vCard : http://www.ivan-herman.net/HermanIvan.vcf >>> >> > > -- > > Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ > mobile: +31-641044153 > PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html > FOAF : http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf > vCard : http://www.ivan-herman.net/HermanIvan.vcf > -- 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 Sunday, 14 February 2010 00:24:11 UTC