ISSUE-12: Presence and syntactic detail of HAVING clause
Presence and syntactic detail of HAVING clause
- State:
- CLOSED
- Product:
- Raised by:
- David Charboneau
- Opened on:
- 2009-05-07
- Description:
- Related Actions Items:
- No related actions
- Related emails:
- Re: RDF WG Resolution Regarding Various Forms of String Literals (from david@3roundstones.com on 2011-06-20)
- Re: RDF WG Resolution Regarding Various Forms of String Literals (from andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com on 2011-06-20)
- Re: RDF WG Resolution Regarding Various Forms of String Literals (from andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com on 2011-06-20)
- AW: RDF WG Resolution Regarding Various Forms of String Literals (from axel.polleres@deri.org on 2011-06-20)
- Re: RDF WG Resolution Regarding Various Forms of String Literals (from steve.harris@garlik.com on 2011-06-20)
- Re: RDF WG Resolution Regarding Various Forms of String Literals (from lee@thefigtrees.net on 2011-06-20)
- RDF WG Resolution Regarding Various Forms of String Literals (from david@3roundstones.com on 2011-06-15)
- Re: ISSUE-12 (HAVING vs FILTER) (from imikhailov@openlinksw.com on 2010-02-10)
- Re: ISSUE-12 (HAVING vs FILTER) (from axel.polleres@deri.org on 2010-02-09)
- ISSUE-12 (HAVING vs FILTER) (from andy.seaborne@talis.com on 2010-02-09)
- Re: Agenda SPARQL TC 2010-02-09 (from axel.polleres@deri.org on 2010-02-09)
- Re: Agenda SPARQL TC 2010-02-09 (from andy.seaborne@talis.com on 2010-02-09)
- Prioritised list of open issues (query, my bits) (from steve.harris@garlik.com on 2010-02-08)
- Summary of open issues on query. (from andy.seaborne@talis.com on 2010-02-03)
- Re: agenda for tomorrow... (from axel.polleres@deri.org on 2009-12-07)
- Re: agenda for tomorrow... now here's the agenda. (from axel.polleres@deri.org on 2009-12-07)
- Re: agenda for tomorrow... (from andy.seaborne@talis.com on 2009-12-07)
- Re: HAVING vs. FILTER (was: Re: Views on the outcomes of F2F) (from axel.polleres@deri.org on 2009-11-13)
- HAVING vs. FILTER (was: Re: Views on the outcomes of F2F) (from lee@thefigtrees.net on 2009-11-12)
- Re: Views on the outcomes of F2F (from gearon@ieee.org on 2009-11-10)
- Re: Views on the outcomes of F2F (from steve.harris@garlik.com on 2009-11-10)
- Re: Views on the outcomes of F2F (from gearon@ieee.org on 2009-11-10)
- Views on the outcomes of F2F (from andy.seaborne@talis.com on 2009-11-10)
- Checking in on our issues (from lee@thefigtrees.net on 2009-09-28)
Related notes:
[LeeF]: general consensus that we need equivalent of a HAVING clause
7 May 2009, 14:53:02http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-02-09#resolution_4
Axel Polleres, 9 Feb 2010, 16:49:34Display change log