Re: Draft response to GK-1

I have added a sentence on the ISSUE we added and that we might not be able to address this 
in the draft response at
     http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:GK-1
I'd suggest to answer now, rather than wait until we know whether we resolve the issue. 

Axel

On 14 Feb 2011, at 11:23, Steve Harris wrote:

> On 2011-02-14, at 10:59, Axel Polleres wrote:
> 
> > Related to the issue of ORDER in GROUP_CONCAT we had a mail thread starting at
> >
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010OctDec/0041.html
> >
> > and ending at
> >
> >  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2010Oct/0001.html
> >
> > ... this was then discussed in the TC on 2010-10-26:
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-10-26#line0100
> >
> > there we had a strawpoll on whether or not we want an order feature in GROUP_CONCAT...
> >
> > Options for group_concat: 1) no order_by 2) simple order_by 3) full ordering by expressions (e.g. order by second letter of a word, etc.)
> >
> > where a clear majority voted for 1), mainly because of concerns that anything else would not be doable with the remaining time/resources.
> >
> > As far  as I understand, what is now being discussed is 3), correct? Back in october, no one voted for 3).
> > Unless someone thinks we have substantial new information, I think we should stick with this position.
> >
> > BTW: I just see that, on IRC, in that TC, Steve suggested to make a postponed issue out of it: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-10-26#line0133  but so far we haven't added it as an issue.
> 
> Right, I see this comment as further evidence that it's worth a (postponed) issue.
> 
> - 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 Tuesday, 15 February 2011 16:14:35 UTC