W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > June 2012

Re: FROM and FROM NAMED: To fetch or not to fetch?

From: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 13:12:21 -0400
Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments <public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1537F454-D7AF-4795-962E-69E07F80CA34@evilfunhouse.com>
To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
David,

I suspect most of this will be addressed in a formal response, but I wanted to briefly comment on this:

On Jun 22, 2012, at 12:24 PM, David Booth wrote:

> - The LOAD operation already provides a means of fetching, so (now that
> we have SPARQL Update) a second means of loading by use of FROM or FROM
> NAMED is redundant.  

I don't think LOAD makes a dereferencing FROM redundant at all. For example, an implementation can do dereferencing to provide a general-purpose query service (e.g. sparql.org) without providing (or implementing) Update or any sort of persistent graph store. Even if such a system *did* implement Update and have a persistent graph store, though, a general purpose query service would be very cumbersome for users as it would require two separate protocol requests: one to load the data, and one to query the data (and assumes nobody has dropped, cleared, or updated your data in-between the load and the query).

.greg
Received on Friday, 22 June 2012 17:12:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 June 2012 17:12:50 GMT