Re: $this in Aggregations

So to get a clear picture of what is going on requires looking at the email
thread, the issue, and the issue resolution, not all of which reference each
other.  Not ideal by any means but perhaps acceptable in this case.  Remember
that the work of the working group is going to be checked to ensure that it
has provided substantive responses for all comments.

As far as the technical aspects of the issue are concerned, the replacement
text uses "result variable" but this term is not defined.  The same term is
also used elsewhere in the document.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Nuance Communications


The query must project the result variable <code>this</code> in its SELECT clause.

On 02/08/2017 11:09 AM, Irene Polikoff wrote:
> 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.
> 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 2017, the edit mentioned above was superseded by the removal of the sentence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
>> <mailto: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
>>
>>
>

Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2017 22:50:48 UTC