W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > March 2005

Re: Comments on SPARQL draft (pt. 1) (insert)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 14:03:43 -0600
To: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org, Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <1111435423.8271.530.camel@localhost>

> *** Language features ***
> where's the INSERT?

Somewhere between low-priority and out-of-scope.

We discussed the state-of-the-art in insert/update and other
future directions at a recent meeting...

 update/insert/manage
 http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/ftf5-bos.html#item_03


Comments like this about scope/features are more relevant to our
use cases and requirements document
 http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-dawg-uc/

than to the query language spec.

Our charter says...

"The RDF Data Access Working Group is only required to defined a
protocol for conveying queries and their results. However, the group
should be aware that it is likely that their work will be extended to
support modifying the graph and should expend reasonable effort to
ensure that such extension is easy, moreover, the group may include such
an ability."
http://www.w3.org/2003/12/swa/dawg-charter#update

insert/update isn't among our requirements or even objectives
so far. i.e. the WG seems to think we can advance the state of the
art without doing INSERT just yet. If you think W3C shouldn't do
a QL at all without insert, please elaborate.


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Monday, 21 March 2005 20:22:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:14:48 GMT