- From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 11:34:23 -0300
- To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Cc: "Lee Feigenbaum" <lee@thefigtrees.net>, "SPARQL Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
> My recollection is that we had a strawpoll and the majority were in favour of > retaining the meaning of * from SPARQL 1.0. Could be wrong though. Not sure what you mean here. I didn't suggest to deviate from the meaning of * as it is used in SPARQL1.0. Anyways, we have to clarify the ambiguities of the definitions of "*", see end of my other mail [1]. Axel 1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010OctDec/0090.html On 14 Oct 2010, at 10:18, Steve Harris wrote: > On 2010-10-14, at 13:33, Axel Polleres wrote: > > > As for aggregates (mentioned by Andy), > > > > SELECT * (agg(Expr) AS ?var) > > > > could indeed make sense, taken that * implicitly projects all grouped variables > > (following the definition of "potentially bound") > > My recollection is that we had a strawpoll and the majority were in favour of retaining the meaning of * from SPARQL 1.0. Could be wrong though. > > - Steve > > -- > Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited > 1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK > +44 20 8439 8203 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 Thursday, 14 October 2010 14:35:07 UTC