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

Re: ISSUE-48: Less verbose delete syntax

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 17:30:37 -0800
Cc: "SPARQL Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <D4E6EF5F-58A8-4B4B-AB49-19623F277927@deri.org>
To: Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetil@kjernsmo.net>
We didn't consider this particularly, but having the
WHERE part optional for a DELETE in that sense you propose
doesn't seem problematic to me, at first sight.

Other opinions?

Axel

On 4 Nov 2009, at 10:49, Kjetil Kjernsmo 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 . }
> ?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Kjetil
> --
> Kjetil Kjernsmo
> kjetil@kjernsmo.net
> http://www.kjetil.kjernsmo.net/
>
>
Received on Friday, 6 November 2009 01:31:21 GMT

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