- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 18:10:14 +0000
- To: Adrian Walker <adriandwalker@gmail.com>
- CC: public-sparql-dev@w3.org
Adrian Walker wrote: > Hi All -- > > Is there a consensus emerging please on the syntax and semantics* of > SPARQL aggregation over RDF? > > If I understand correctly, there are some implementations doing their > own things, but as yet no standard. > > If that's indeed the case, is there a timeline for a standard? > > Surely, SPARQL should avoid the multi-vendor situation that SQL got in > to on this matter? > > Thanks for educating me about this, -- Adrian > > * Semantics as in, ideally, a model theory that says what the result of > any aggregation must be. One way to define the results would be to extend the SPARQL algebra with group/aggregation. Not a model theory - but it would define the results of an aggregation. Andy > > Internet Business Logic > A Wiki and SOA Endpoint for Executable Open Vocabulary English > Online at www.reengineeringllc.com <http://www.reengineeringllc.com> > Shared use is free -- Hewlett-Packard Limited Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2007 18:10:40 UTC