Re: Response to DBeckett-1

On 08/02/11 11:57, Steve Harris wrote:
> I've updated the proposed response to include the new name for http-rdf-update:
> Can some people please give it a once over and say if it's OK.
> - Steve

Some of the text seems to have been overtaken since it was first written:

The Federated Query document will be incorporated into the main Query 
document in the next public version of the document.

I think we're leaving federated query in its own document to show it's 
considered an optional feature.

[LeeF]: RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-1 by putting BINDINGS in the query 
document, and leaving the rest of the federated query work as its own 
18 Jan 2011, 15:25:57

The intention is to move the grammar out to a separate document, as it 
covers both Query and Update, as you've seen.

is this true? It's not a bad idea - it's just I didn't know that was the 
plan - I thought we were leaving in rq25.  If it is to be separate, 
there's another document we need to prepare for LC.


The execution of aggregates is indeed complex, and we will look to 
include something which explicitly sets out the order as specified in 
the document.

Is this still true or has the passing of time meant it is now done?
If it's not done, do we need an @@ for this or wiki entry? or is the 
algebra already addressing this?

There is now a algorithmic sketch to show how Joining Aggregate Values 
should be applied to Solution Sequences.

Context question: which piece of text is this referring to?  The section 
"Joining Aggregate Values" does not read as having an algorithm.


Received on Tuesday, 8 February 2011 14:56:31 UTC