- From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 21:19:44 +0200
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Cc: <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Andy, all, I have adapted the response draft for Jerven Bolleman (essentially incorporating your arguments), see http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:JBolleman-1 Please check especially the following (I wasn't 100% sure what you meant by > By the way, an "ORDER BY *" is still not a gauaranteed total ordering. but I guess it was in spirit this: -------- First of all, note that a shortcut like "ORDER BY *" as you suggest would not guarantee a predicable total order of results (for instance when blank nodes are returned, since two separate calls are not guaranteed to return the same blank node identifiers). -------- I just see Jerven asking about the state of his comment (will answer him offlist that we're at it, but I'd appreciate feedback to get this oune out quickly thanks a lot, Axel On 17 May 2011, at 17:41, Andy Seaborne wrote: > > > On 17/05/11 13:40, Axel Polleres wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > drafted a response to > > > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2011May/0016.html > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2011May/0017.html > > > > at > > http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:JBolleman-1 > > > > please check/acknowledge > > > > thanks, > > Axel > > We did consider things in this area [1] and so we can say we actively > were aware of the issue and choose, on time resource issue grounds, not > to address the matter. (voting record?) > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Feature:Cursors > > Let's at least say this is a protocol issue not a query issue. Existing > HTTP mechanisms are applicable like ETags for consistency and ranges for > slicing. Client side paging off a stream of results is also a candidate > mechanism. > > Cursors, paging, (transactions) etc are about controlling the flow of > results and about results over multiple requests, not in defining results. > > I think this clear-cut separation is important because it then can > address interactions with update, system restarts and anything that > means the server would loose state or simple re-execution of the query > would produce different answers even in a deterministic query processor. > > By the way, an "ORDER BY *" is still not a gauaranteed total ordering. > > Andy > >
Received on Monday, 17 October 2011 19:20:15 UTC