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 20:40:01 +0000
Cc: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@talis.com>, public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Message-Id: <E9C4673D-396D-4E7A-A69C-EA497E6C8152@garlik.com>
To: Paul Gearon <gearon@ieee.org>
On 9 Nov 2009, at 20:29, Paul Gearon wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Andy Seaborne  
> <andy.seaborne@talis.com> wrote:
>> On template/pattern .... "bnodes".
>
> That reminds me...
>
> Are we expecting the statement:
>
> DELETE WHERE { :foo :bar _:b1 }
>
> to be the equivalent of:
>
> DELETE { :foo :bar ?b } WHERE { :foo :bar ?b FILTER isBlank(?b) }
>
>
> If not, then will _:b1 bind to a single blank node or all of them? Can
> it bind to non-blank nodes? Is this question too hard, and we should
> disallow blank nodes in DELETE templates?

It should follow the same rules as CONSTRUCT as far as possible, for  
reasons of sanity preservation. However, it's not so obvious what that  
means in this case.

CONSTRUCT mints "new" bNodes when you give it [] or _:b. Isn't it an  
error to mention bNodes with the same label in the CONSTRUCT and WHERE  
clauses? That makes things a little tricky.

Maybe the shorthand notation should ban bNodes? :(

- 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 20:40:37 GMT

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