- From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 00:35:25 +0200
- To: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Since the author of the comment intervened already, unless any more comments, I would like to close/send this comment, by the end of the week. please, let me know if any objections. thanks, Axel On 17 Oct 2011, at 22:21, Axel Polleres wrote: > Updated with the link to http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/#modOrderBy as suggested. > > best, > Axel > > On 17 Oct 2011, at 22:16, Andy Seaborne wrote: > > > > > > > On 17/10/11 20:19, Axel Polleres wrote: > > > 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). > > > -------- > > > > While its's true that bNodes don't sort predictably, there are more > > important and significant cases though that would matter: > > Why not refer to the text in: > > > > http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/#modOrderBy > > > > (which is SPARQL 1.0 text) > > > > Andy > > > > > > > > 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 Thursday, 20 October 2011 22:55:21 UTC