W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2010

Re: Review of "SPARQL 1.1 Update"

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 11:20:49 +0000
Cc: Paul Gearon <gearon@ieee.org>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <36A98199-5C17-4308-B303-79F12120C443@garlik.com>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@talis.com>
On 9 Jan 2010, at 19:17, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> That seems visually like two statements to me. Some SQL systems  
>>>>> use
>>>>> ; to
>>>>> separate statements too, and it's familiar to programmers of C- 
>>>>> derived
>>>>> languages.
>>>>
>>>> Makes sense. So do we tack a [ ';' ] to the end of the expression?
>>
>> Seems good to me.
>>
>>> Not overloading DELETE would work now we have not got a short-form  
>>> of
>>> INSERT and the multiple use of DELETE and INSERT with one WHERE.
>>
>> I think I'd find the overloaded form much easier to remember.  
>> There's no
>> particular reason why REMOVE is not allowed to take a WHERE, but  
>> DELETE is.
>>
>> It's especially arbitrary around the DELETE WHERE { } syntactic  
>> shortcut
>> as opposed to REMOVE { }.
>>
>> - Steve
>
> I think that introducing ";" for all operations because this one  
> short form needs it is not balanced so I'm keen to find a way to  
> avoid that necessity.

Ah, I was thinking that the last ; would be optional, like . and  
triples.

- Steve
Received on Monday, 11 January 2010 11:21:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:41 GMT