I thought as much, I already implemented that in dotNetRDF some time ago anyway
I suppose a syntactic distinction would make the syntax clearer but I don't think its truly necessary from an implementers standpoint Rob On 6/4/12 12:05 PM, "Andy Seaborne" <[email protected]> wrote: >On 04/06/12 19:33, Rob Vesse wrote: >> Personally I have advocated in the past (though not necessarily in a >> formal comment) that engines should be able to introduce new aggregates >> using the same extension function mechanism new functions can be >> introduced now. Parsers just have to be well informed enough to know >> what's an extension function vs what's an extension aggregate. >> >> dotNetRDF already has lvn:nmax and lvn:nmin (MAX and MIN on numerics >>only, >> non-numerics are ignored) and lvn:median included > >(SPARQL comment) > > >That's how SPARQL 1.1 works - a function call (uri(args)) can be a >aggregate. ex:xyz(DISTINCT ?x) is in the grammar solely so ex:xyz can >be an aggregate. The engine has to know up-front what the aggregates are. > >Personally, I though it would have been better to have a different >syntax (for example, AGG[uri](args)). > > Andy > >
