W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > October 2010

Re: Abstract syntax for updates

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 12:38:31 -0300
Cc: <public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org>
Message-Id: <B5498FA1-2E6B-4087-9356-AC9F6E16BA3D@deri.org>
To: rjh06r <rjh06r@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Dear Ross,

Thanks for the input which the group may consider for defining the formal update semantics. We have not formally acknowledged this before now, as the specification has been been under active modification. Being a committee process means that the evolution of the specification may not necessarily align with any one contribution.

You can check the current working draft of the SPARQL/Update specification that the group is working on, which is an evolution of the SPARQL/Update proposal you cite in your paper [4], at:


(please note that there will be a new release of this document by the end of this week, so you might want to hold off until then to check details)

You should find that this aligns with your proposal in some instances, though it differs significantly in others.

Comments on this document and its future versions are/will be highly welcome!

Thanks, Axel, on behalf of the WG

On 31 Mar 2010, at 12:32, rjh06r wrote:

> I have been working on an abstract syntax for an RDF Update language which deliberately has much in common with SPARQL Update. The syntax presented, [1], concisely tackles several issues discussed in this group. For instance...
> - Conditions (WHERE etc) are captured by guarding updates with an internalised SPARQL query.
> - Blank nodes are handled by a query discovering the node. The discovery moves the scope of the blank node around the query so that they may be treated in the same way as URIs.
> - Named graphs are primitive enabling the declaration of federated queries and updates.
> - Optional extensions, choice and recursion, offer significant power for updating linked lists and other linked data structures. The syntax is fully concurrent.
> The languages is explained in detail in the paper, [1]. The introduction replicates the examples in the SPARQL update specification, if the syntax is a barrier. The last sentence may be controversial. Perhaps the operational semantics mimic some of your intuition...
> Regards,
> Ross
> [1] http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/18602/
> --
Received on Tuesday, 12 October 2010 15:39:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:52:11 UTC