Re: $this in Aggregations

Peter,

This issue is about the use of $this in aggregations. There was a proposal on the WG wiki to close issue-208 as addressed in the edit described in https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-shapes/2016Nov/0027.html <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-shapes/2016Nov/0027.html>. The edit was made in November 2016.

By the time the WG got to deciding on formally closing this issue in January 2017, the edit mentioned above was superseded by the removal of the sentence about aggregation from the spec.

When editors explained this, the resolution was updated with “-made obsolete”, so the WG decision was to close the issue as first addressed by the edit and then, with further changes in the spec, made obsolete.

If you still see an issue in this area, please describe it based on the current content of the document.

Thanks,

Irene


> On Feb 8, 2017, at 9:05 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 02/07/2017 10:33 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>> Peter,
>> 
>> you had requested we continue this ISSUE-208 in its original email thread.
>> 
>> We have meanwhile closed this issue as documented here:
>> 
>>    https://www.w3.org/2017/01/18-shapes-minutes.html
>> 
>> I believe your last comment on this topic was:
>> 
>> I don't think that the new wording conforms to that used in SPARQL, so there
>> are still changes required here.  Furthermore, the "Furthermore" sentence is
>> still in the document.
>> 
>> The "Furthermore" sentence had been removed a while ago. I don't see a problem
>> with the wording with regards to SPARQL. Could you clarify what you think is
>> left to do here. The latest version of this sentence is:
>> 
>> The SPARQL query derived from the value of <code>sh:select</code> returns the
>> result variable <code>this</code> in its SELECT clause.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> Holger
> 
> The resolution of the ISSUE-208 may have been overturned somehow as the
> wording that was introduced to resolve it is no longer in the document.  What
> is the current wording that is supposed to resolve this issue?
> 
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Nuance Communications
> 
>