W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > May 2011

Re: DELETE and INSERT redundant vs. DELETE/INSERT?

From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 10:20:44 +1000
Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <2C2BDF82-7CD7-428F-BEAC-4F7AA7D40B9F@topquadrant.com>
To: Paul Gearon <pgearon@revelytix.com>
Hi Paul,

thanks, this addresses my concerns.


On May 4, 2011, at 10:17 AM, Paul Gearon wrote:

> Holger,
> Thank you for your comments, and apologies for not replying sooner. I
> have responded below.
> On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 9:54 PM, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> wrote:
>> I am working on an update to the SPIN RDF syntax to support the latest
>> SPARQL 1.1 UPDATE draft. The latter contains a comprehensive
>> description of DELETE/INSERT [1], followed by an equally comprehensive
>> coverage of DELETE [2] and INSERT [3]. The latter two appear very much
>> redundant, and are IMHO even confusing. DELETE and INSERT appear to
>> be a true subsets of DELETE/INSERT, and even the Grammar [4] does not
>> distinguish them.
> These operations are indeed degenerate cases of DELETE/INSERT. They
> were initially proposed as separate cases, to avoid a case in the
> grammar where both DELETE and INSERT are omitted, but they have now
> evolved to be subsets of the more general DELETE/INSERT operation.
> They have been left in the documentation as informative clarifications
> of very common operations. In this respect, they are directed more to
> users than to implementors of the specification, and we see some value
> in keeping them, but we have moved them to subsections of
>> Could those two simply be dropped, to simplify the documents and
>> reduce the (apparent) implementation burden?
> Rather than removing these sections, they have been explicitly marked
> as "Informative" subsection with an explanation that a correct
> implementation of DELETE/INSERT will correctly cover these operations.
> Furthermore, The new section "4 SPARQL Update Formal Model" in the
> SPARQL 1.1 Update document (see
> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/update-1.1/#formalModel for the
> current Editor's draft) shall clarify this behaviour.
> Please indicate if this response adequately addresses your concerns.
> Regards,
> Paul Gearon
> (On behalf of the SPARQL Working Group)
Received on Wednesday, 4 May 2011 00:21:19 UTC

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