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

Re: ISSUE-48: Less verbose delete syntax

From: Paul Gearon <gearon@ieee.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 13:49:56 -0500
Message-ID: <a25ac1f0911051049n71e9969u5df82ae2be03e9e7@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetil@kjernsmo.net>
Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Hi Kjetil,

On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetil@kjernsmo.net> wrote:
> All,
>
> I'm sorry I couldn't be at the F2F, but I looked through the scrollback and
> found the following resolution:
>
> <sandro> RESOLVED:  we'll have one update statement,   DELETE ... INSERT
> ... WHERE ..., where one of DELETE or INSERT may be ommitted, and WHERE is
> optional, and multiple of these may be combined in a string using ";" as
> the separator.
>
> Lets see if I got this right, does this mean that my old verbose example:
>
> DELETE { <foo> dc:title ?o . }
> INSERT { <foo> dc:title "Foo" . }
> WHERE { <foo> dc:title ?o . }
>
> ...would become
> DELETE { <foo> dc:title ?o . }
> INSERT { <foo> dc:title "Foo" . }
> right?
>
> And if I just simply wanted to delete any dc:titles of the <foo>, it'll be
> simply
> DELETE { <foo> dc:title ?o . }
> ?

I wasn't at the F2F either, but that's not my understanding.

The reason for this resolution is because the original definition
required the MODIFY keyword at the start. The new definition does not
require this keyword.

I believe that your example would still require the INSERT. The only
case where the WHERE clause can be omitted is when there are no
variables to be bound. So your INSERT example can be issued on its
own, but not the DELETE, as it has the ?o variable.

If I'm wrong on this, can someone who was at the meeting please correct me? TIA.

Regards,
Paul Gearon
Received on Thursday, 5 November 2009 18:50:38 GMT

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