- From: Polleres, Axel <axel.polleres@siemens.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 10:48:52 +0100
- To: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, "birte.glimm@uni-ulm.de" <birte.glimm@uni-ulm.de>
http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2012-03-13#line0075 -------------------- Birte Glimm: Do we really want to do this counting / non-counting operator distinction *and* to do DISTINCT ... in 2 section on operators and DISTINCT it is not clear if these are alternatives to each other or complementary Andy Seaborne: * and + counting/non-counting versions (agreement on this) ... if we go with DISTINCT, we wouldn't need these operators. Useful to distinguish between applicable algorithms to use and syntax clarification Birte Glimm: going for both? Andy Seaborne: yes, so far -------------------- Just my two cents to emphasize that I tend to agree on that: I believe we need DISTINCT() to address JC-4 and related comments in a fashion agreeable to the commenters. Small typo comment on the current editor's draft version, just as I stumbled over it: s/ There are counting ({*}, {+}) and non-counting ({*}, {+}) forms of operators for arbitrary length paths. / There are counting ({*}, {+}) and non-counting (*, +) forms of operators for arbitrary length paths. / Best, Axel -- Dr. Axel Polleres Siemens AG Österreich Corporate Technology Central Eastern Europe Research & Technologies CT T CEE Tel.: +43 (0) 51707-36983 Mobile: +43 (0) 664 88550859 Fax: +43 (0) 51707-56682 mailto:axel.polleres@siemens.com
Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2012 09:49:26 UTC