- From: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
- Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 17:19:23 -0400
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Apr 28, 2012, at 6:46 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> == What to do with BINDINGS?
>
> We can leave BINDINGS as it is ("legacy"), rename it to be the same as the inline data (if name changes) or remove it.
>
> BINDINGS happens after Grouping/Aggregates, HAVING and before select expressions. It seems to me to be unlikely to see it used with group/aggregate - if removed, you'd need a subquery for the group, the a join with inline data. That is, this more specialized case needs more syntax.
>
> Caveat the different syntax from DATA.
>
> My preference is to bite the bullet now and remove BINDINGS. There may be complaints, and they are right to complain as we have done 2 LC's, but if we are making changes, I think doing it properly for the long term is better.
I'm worried about removing it entirely. Doing so would, I think, force a lot of complexity onto a federated query client that wanted to *send* a BINDINGS clause, because it would have to pick where in the query string to put the bindings data, instead of just appending it to the end of the query string.
.greg
Received on Saturday, 28 April 2012 21:19:49 UTC