- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 14:55:54 +0000
- To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- CC: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 08/02/11 11:57, Steve Harris wrote: > I've updated the proposed response to include the new name for http-rdf-update: > http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:DBeckett-1 > > 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 specification 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. [[ II. 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. Andy
Received on Tuesday, 8 February 2011 14:56:31 UTC