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:
> 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