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

Re: ISSUE-48: Less verbose delete syntax

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 20:27:09 +0000
Cc: Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetil@kjernsmo.net>, public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Message-Id: <10411C92-3349-495A-905B-27E6F60A35A9@garlik.com>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@talis.com>
On 9 Nov 2009, at 20:19, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> On 09/11/2009 20:05, Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote:
>> Well, Andy and Steve has already getting started and have mentioned
>> allowing just a BGP too, but yeah, I can live with your proposal,  
>> as long
>> as we keep an issue open for a fuller graph pattern for a time- 
>> permitting,
>> or more likely for SPARQL 1.2.
>
> DELETE WHERE {BGP} is fine.

Yup. Well, BGP + GRAPH. The stuff that's legal on both sides.

> Steve and I were exploring, rather than getting as far proposing, on  
> what more could be done. :-)
>
> Unless "more" can give a feeling of being really solid and  
> definitely the right thing to do, then I prefer to leave anything  
> beyond DELETE WHERE { BGP } to SPARQL-next.

+1

> That said, a safe step is to allow BGP+FILTERs

I'm not so sure, FILTERs don't feel any less complex than OPTIONAL and  
friends.

If we're going with simple lets just have templates (BGP + GRAPH).

- Steve

-- 
Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited
2 Sheen Road, Richmond, TW9 1AE, UK
+44(0)20 8973 2465  http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10  
9AD
Received on Monday, 9 November 2009 20:27:48 GMT

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