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

Re: Updates

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@talis.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 10:27:25 +0000
Message-ID: <4B17928D.9010708@talis.com>
To: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>


On 01/12/2009 17:23, Paul Gearon wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 8:58 AM, Andy Seaborne<andy.seaborne@talis.com>  wrote:
>>
>> I confess I don't see the arbitrary order of INSERTs and DELETEs as very
>> clear.  Is there a reason for multiple INSERTs and DELETEs, and allowing
>> INSERTs before DELETEs?
>
> The request seems to have two motivations, both based on modifying
> more than one graph at a time. The first is that it provides a syntax
> for specifying several graphs (though allowing "GRAPH<uri>  {...}"
> into the template would also provide this).
>
> The second was to address public concerns that we've had about lack of
> transaction support. This didn't make it into the mailing list, but we
> were grilled on it at ISWC. The most vocal concern came from Abraham
> Bernstein. Should I ask him to write something formal? (I'm surprised
> he hasn't already).

There are several aspects to providing transactions.  If we are 
addressing transactions, then we need to decide what the problem space 
we are addressing. We seem to be in similar position to query here - 
there are many features so either we take longer and do more, or shorter 
and expect a later WG to continue the work.  We need to decide 
explicitly on the scope.

Having a single block of INSERT/DELETEs ties to a single WHERE isn't 
general. Was having explicit BEGIN-COMMIT/ABORT words with a per-service 
declaration of what they mean considered?


	Andy
Received on Thursday, 3 December 2009 10:28:08 GMT

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