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

RE: Editorial suggestion for CREATE operation

From: Polleres, Axel <axel.polleres@siemens.com>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 09:17:14 +0200
To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
CC: public-rdf-dawg-comments <public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9DA51FFE5E84464082D7A089342DEEE80139B0B05FF4@ATVIES9917WMSX.ww300.siemens.net>
Dear David,

> No, I think that wording still needs to be corrected, because 
> the sentence does not limit that clause to the case of empty 
> graphs.  I suggest qualifying that clause as follows:
> [[
> Since (non graph-aware) Graph Stores may remove graphs that 
> are left empty, for such Graph Stores any CreateOperation 
> performed on an empty or non-existent graph may be viewed as 
> implicitly immediately followed by a DropOperation (see next 
> subsection), or simply as an operation with no effect.
> ]]

Thanks, I have taken your suggested wording into account 
as an editorial change reflected in the current Editors' Draft at:

 http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/update-1.1/Overview.xml

Additionally, I also made a clarifying edit to the similar 
note on the ClearOperation, by changing

----------------------
Since (non graph-aware) Graph Stores may remove graphs that are left empty, for such Graph Stores any ClearOperation may be viewed as immediately followed by a DropOperation, see below.
----------------------

to 

---------------------- 
Since (non graph-aware) Graph Stores may remove graphs that are left empty, for such Graph Stores any ClearOperation performed on a named graph may be viewed as immediately followed by a DropOperation, see below. 
----------------------

Please let us know whether this response Addresses/clarifies your 
concern.

Axel

-- 
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 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Booth [mailto:david@dbooth.org] 
> Sent: Monday, 14 May 2012 2:54 PM
> To: Polleres, Axel
> Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments
> Subject: RE: Editorial suggestion for CREATE operation
> 
> Hi Axel,
> 
> No, I think that wording still needs to be corrected, because 
> the sentence does not limit that clause to the case of empty 
> graphs.  I suggest qualifying that clause as follows:
> [[
> Since (non graph-aware) Graph Stores may remove graphs that 
> are left empty, for such Graph Stores any CreateOperation 
> performed on an empty or non-existent graph may be viewed as 
> implicitly immediately followed by a DropOperation (see next 
> subsection), or simply as an operation with no effect.
> ]]
> 
> Thanks,
> David
> 
> On Mon, 2012-05-14 at 08:36 +0200, Polleres, Axel wrote:
> > Dear David,
> > 
> > As for the paragraph you quote:
> > 
> > > However, I just noticed the "Note" below that section, which says 
> > > that any CREATE may be viewed as immediately followed by a DROP:
> > > [[
> > > Since (non graph-aware) Graph Stores may remove graphs 
> that are left 
> > > empty, for such Graph Stores any CreateOperation may be viewed as 
> > > implicitly immediately followed by a DropOperation (see next 
> > > subsection), or simply as an operation with no effect.
> > > ]]
> > 
> > Please note that it says explicitly here that
> > 
> > "(non graph-aware) Graph Stores may remove graphs  *that are left 
> > empty* "
> > 
> > Thus, existing contents (i.e. non-empty graphs) wouldn't be 
> possibly 
> > affected.
> > 
> > Please let us know whether this response Addresses/clarifies your 
> > concern.
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > Axel
> > 
> >  
> 
> --
> David Booth, Ph.D.
> http://dbooth.org/
> 
> Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not 
> necessarily reflect those of his employer.
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 16 May 2012 07:17:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 16 May 2012 07:17:52 GMT