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

RE: Error in illustration of WITH clause

From: Polleres, Axel <axel.polleres@siemens.com>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 08:37:36 +0200
To: Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com>
CC: "public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9DA51FFE5E84464082D7A089342DEEE80138CF539C1F@ATVIES9917WMSX.ww300.siemens.net>
Dear Peter,

Firstly, apologies for delays in the response to your comment. 

> Does this editorial change imply that my query about the 
> SPARQL 1.1 Update Delete Insert order [1] resulted in no 
> change? Ie, if both Delete and Insert are in the same query 
> then Delete must come first.

Indeed, the intuition behind the fixed order in the current syntax is that DELETEs happen before insert, in order to make clear that new INSERTions aren't immediately removed again (in case ther is an overlap in what matches the DELETE and INSERT clauses); this also reflects the current semantics definition, cf.
 http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/update-1.1/Overview.xml#def_deleteinsertoperation

Consequently, my personal feeling is that this intuition would be lost if we allowed INSERTs to be written before DELETEs in the same update statement.

Note that this reply is my personal opinion, but please let us know if it settles 
your comment. Otherwise, I can check back again with the group and send a formal 
reply approved by the group.

With best regards,
Axel Polleres
 
-- 
Dr. Axel Polleres 
Siemens AG Österreich 
Corporate Technology Central Eastern Europe Research & Technologies 
CT T CEE 
 
Tel.: +43 (0) 51707-36983 
Mobile: +43 (0) 664 88550859
Fax: +43 (0) 51707-56682 mailto:axel.polleres@siemens.com 
Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2012 06:38:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 2 May 2012 06:38:07 GMT