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

Re: ISSUE-48: Less verbose delete syntax

From: Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetil@kjernsmo.net>
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 14:35:10 +0100
To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Message-id: <200911221435.11098.kjetil@kjernsmo.net>
On Saturday 21. November 2009 19:37:43 Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
> Steve Harris wrote:
> > On 21 Nov 2009, at 14:21, Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote:
> >> PROPOSAL: In cases where the WHERE clause only consists of BGP, GRAPH
> >> and FILTER, the template may be omitted from the a  DELETE [ FROM
> >> <uri> ]* { template } [ WHERE { pattern } ] query.
> >
> > I feel that the consensus was more on:
> >
> > DELETE [ {template} ] WHERE { pattern }
> 
> Kjetil says omitting the template, so I think you are saying the same
>  thing?
> 
> Oh, I see, the grammar there says the opposite of what the English says.

Ah, right, it does but it was motivated from the F2F2 resolution that 
started this thread:

<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.

Paul said that one may omit the WHERE clause in the case where there are no 
variables to be bound. This is also codified in the current published WD. I 
decided to cutnpaste the DELETE statement from the current WD, since the 
actual grammar here will be somewhat complex.

You could say 
DELETE [ FROM <uri> ]* [ { template } ] [ WHERE { pattern } ]
but not everything is optional at the same time :-) That's why I decided to 
keep the current DELETE grammar in the proposal and say in the text what I 
perceive the consensus to be. Does that sound reasonable?

Cheers,

Kjetil
-- 
Kjetil Kjernsmo
kjetil@kjernsmo.net
http://www.kjetil.kjernsmo.net/
Received on Sunday, 22 November 2009 13:35:42 GMT

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