- From: Matthew Perry <matthew.perry@oracle.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 09:00:25 -0500
- To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- CC: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Hi Steve, Lets say M = (1, 2, 3, "a", "b") Does this change COUNT(xsd:int(?x)) from 3 to 5? - Matt On 2/11/2011 7:03 AM, Steve Harris wrote: > I've spoken with Andy on IRC, and he also agrees that it's probably better without it, so the current draft of rq25 doesn't have the error count argument. > > Following some discussion on IRC last night, I've also clarified the return types of the set functions. > > - Steve > > On 2011-02-11, at 10:55, Steve Harris wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Currently the Set Functions in Aggregates (ie. the underlying functions) are defined like: >> >> Func(M, errors, scalars) >> >> where M a multiset of the values from the group, e.g. if you have SUM(?x) and ?x is 1,2,3 in the group, then M = (1,2,3). But M is defined used ListEvalE(), so all the results which are errors are removed from the multiset. >> >> errors is a count of the errors (which where removed from M). >> >> I think it would be much simpler if instead M included the errors, and the error count argument was dropped, then it would be: >> >> M = ListEval(exprlist, range(g)) >> >> func(M, scalarvals), for non-DISTINCT >> func(Distinct(M), scalarvals), for DISTINCT >> >> Dave B also complained about the error count argument saying it was redundant in his comment. >> >> I don't quite remember why it was included? I think Andy S might have suggested it, something about future extensibility? But I don't see what function it performs. >> >> So, my question is, can anyone think of a good reason to keep it? >> >> - 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 Friday, 11 February 2011 14:02:06 UTC