- From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 21:50:36 -0400
- To: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
When thinking about practical examples for GROUP_CONCAT, I can hardly think of any where I wouldn't want to impose an order... ... thus, what's the opinions about adding another scalar parameter "order" which takes as parameter "DESC"|"ASC" That is, e.g. something like: PREFIX foaf: <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/> SELECT ( SAMPLE(?N) as ?Name) ( GROUP_CONCAT(?M; SEPARATOR = ", " , ORDER="ASC") AS ?Nicknames ) WHERE { ?P a foaf:Person ; foaf:name ?N ; foaf:nick ?M . } GROUP BY ?P It seems that GROUP_CONCAT in SQL dialects also has an ORDER BY clause, as e.g. a quick google search reveals for MySQL [1]. Steve, do you think that would be a big deal to add? Others? Axel P.S.: I thought briefly about not only allowing "ASC"|"DESC" but an arbitrary ORDER BY expression, however, that admittedly seems not to go well with the current Aggregation() semantics definition, I am afraid... 1. http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/group-by-functions.html#function_group-concat
Received on Thursday, 7 October 2010 01:51:14 UTC