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

Re: DELETE and blank nodes

From: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 19:24:43 +0000
Message-ID: <492f2b0b1003031124s4b02acd9o401939b9b790cdbf@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@talis.com>
Cc: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
[snip]
> We're discussing a case akin to an editor manipulating an RDF graph but
> generally I would have thought that update usually applies to the base data,
> not the entailments drawn from it.

It probably makes more sense. My point is that we haven't really
thought about this and we don't define updates with no-simple
entailments in this round of SPARQL, but this decision basically fixes
the options.

I don't see having bnodes in DELETE statements with no re-use across
BGPs/template as bad, it seems nice for the lists issue and it doesn't
force a decision now on which semantics updates under non-simple
entailments will have. So I am inclined to prefer this version as
opposed to just forbidding bnodes.

> When working with encoding of the ontology, the app is dealing with the RDF
> in as an encoding so only simple entailment is needed and quite possible
> makes more sense surely?
>
Could well be, but I haven't spend much thought on that yet.

Birte

>        Andy
>



-- 
Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 306
Computing Laboratory
Parks Road
Oxford
OX1 3QD
United Kingdom
+44 (0)1865 283529
Received on Wednesday, 3 March 2010 19:25:18 GMT

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