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

Re: SPARQL update (draft) question on LOAD uris

From: Paul Gearon <gearon@ieee.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 19:18:26 -0400
Message-ID: <a25ac1f1003241618y5aefdf83jeded16f05f96c9ce@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@talis.com>
Cc: sparql Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@talis.com> wrote:
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: SPARQL update (draft) question on LOAD uris
> Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 08:25:49 -0700
> From: Dave Beckett <dave@dajobe.org>
> To: Andy Seaborne <andy@seaborne.org>
>
> Are these two work-in-progress SPARQL 1.1 update operations intended to have
> the same semantics?
>
> 1)
> LOAD <uri1> <uri2> <uri3>
>
>
> 2)
> LOAD <uri1>
> LOAD <uri2>
> LOAD <uri3>
>
> ?


While not specified, I'm fine with this.

> (INTO <graph> is not relevant here I hope)

This bothers me. Why wouldn't it be relevant? Of course, if it's
missing, then the data is to be loaded into the default graph, but
otherwise the destination graph would be required, right? If it's
there, then would it only be issued once (meaning that a LOAD can only
load data into one graph), or would it be required for each URI to be
loaded?

Regards,
Paul Gearon
Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2010 23:19:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:42 GMT