Re: syntax for the algebra - or "shortcuts" for subselect

On 11/08/10 10:50, Axel Polleres wrote:
> (sorry, previous message was unfinished)
> Had this in my mind for a while... but didn't have a chance to write it down yet:
> Along the discussions around BIND, I am thinking about why only decoupling project expressions
> but not also operators in the algebra that are syntactically bound to (sub)select at the moment, namely:

We went through a process to decide on what the WG would address and no 
new evidence has come in (aside from the comment of generalized 
aggregation which we decided to note and stick with what we have got).

Had we been starting from scratch (and what we have learned from SPARQL 
in-action particualr the common reading of lexical top-to-bottom reading 
of queries), a syntax that didn't scramble the different operations and 
present them in a jumbled order would be something I'd advocate.

But we're not starting from scratch.  There is some value for the 
familiar of the SQL approach, even if it is a bit weird.

Existing implementations have followed SQL's style in their extension 


Received on Wednesday, 11 August 2010 12:11:01 UTC