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

Re: Error in illustration of WITH clause

From: Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 16:49:39 +1000
Message-ID: <CAGYFOCTy_221Zxq1tGpxF=UY8f-=RcnLcUP370wq-71yhakJZA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Polleres, Axel" <axel.polleres@siemens.com>
Cc: "public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org>
On 2 May 2012 16:37, Polleres, Axel <axel.polleres@siemens.com> wrote:
> 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.

Hi Axel,

That settles my comment. I was mostly seeking clarification since the
examples previously did not match the grammar definition but the
editorial change clears up the ambiguity in my opinion.

Thanks,

Peter
Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2012 06:50:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 2 May 2012 06:50:17 GMT