W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2009

Reflections on Update

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 16:58:00 +0000
To: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B6CF1054FDC8B845BF93A6645D19BEA362D15FCAEF@GVW1118EXC.americas.hpqcorp.net>
This is to suggest that we start with a smaller set of capabilities for update.  Sort of split update into "phase 1" and "phase 2".

Looking back on the discussion, the timescale we have and the overall set of features, it seems to me that making sure some core part of update made visible to the community early would be a good course of action.

The core might be changes to some graph, without specifying which graph as part of the update language.  This would also help shake out the alternatives of a non-language based approach although what I took away is that ideas for a non-language approach do not immediately extend to collections of graphs without particular models of relating name to graph (so they aren't a panacea).

One aspect of a language-based approach I do like is that an update script can be used for local changes, without HTTP.


A possible core:

CLEAR
INSERT DATA { triples }
DELETE DATA { triples }
MODIFY DELETE { template } INSERT {template } WHERE { pattern }


And later:
 Graph management
 Graph store
 Multi graph operations

	Andy




--------------------------------------------
  Hewlett-Packard Limited
  Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
  Registered No: 690597 England

Received on Friday, 8 May 2009 16:59:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:38 GMT