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.
This is correct. We're hoping that this list will be a reasonable forum
to encourage implementors to be aware of each other's progress on areas
including aggregation that are not addressed in the current SPARQL
specification.
If that's indeed the case, is there a timeline for a standard?
Not at this time. The working group is in the finishing stages of
publishing a recommendation for the "first version" of SPARQL. It's my
hope that the work on SPARQL 'extensions' will continue in the various
SPARQL implementations, and that a new round of standardization will
begin once there is renewed energy and mature designs to draw from.
Lee
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.
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
