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

RE: ISSUE-47: Is MODIFY syntax required?

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:45:13 +0000
To: Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetil@kjernsmo.net>, "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B6CF1054FDC8B845BF93A6645D19BEA3693FAD49AB@GVW1118EXC.americas.hpqcorp.net>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Kjetil Kjernsmo
> Sent: 20 October 2009 15:36
> To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: ISSUE-47: Is MODIFY syntax required?
> 
> On Tuesday 20. October 2009 16:29:14 Paul Gearon wrote:
> > While I agree that it's often intuitive to think of "changing a
> > triple", the fact is that RDF statements either exist, or they don't.
> 
> Yeah, that's true!
> 
> > This is just a roundabout way of saying that I don't want to see a
> > concession to the view of changing a triple. Yes, it meets some
> > people's (incorrect) expectations, but it goes against the
> > expectations of everyone who knows what's really going on. Isn't
> > better documentation the correct solution here?
> 
> I don't know. The actual problem here is the not whats actually happening,
> the problem is the additional typing or complexity in writing programs to
> write queries, especially when it is seemingly redundant. This is what the
> majority of users care about, I would claim.

While I agree with Paul that the correct POV is not to change a triple but remove and insert, I'd like to understand what you propose it could look like.  Is it a shortform of a more general operation like MODIFY?

	Andy

> 
> Kjetil
> --
> Kjetil Kjernsmo
> kjetil@kjernsmo.net
> http://www.kjetil.kjernsmo.net/


Received on Thursday, 22 October 2009 14:46:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:40 GMT