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

Re: SPARQL update (draft) question on LOAD uris

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@talis.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 09:38:47 +0000
Message-ID: <4BAB2F27.6010307@talis.com>
To: Paul Gearon <gearon@ieee.org>
CC: sparql Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>


On 24/03/2010 23:18, Paul Gearon wrote:
> 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.

Sorry - missed that - when did it change?

(I'd mildly prefer multiple names just for convenience - but I'd also 
like that for FROM as well).

>> (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?

My understanding is that the Q was about multiple loads, not the 
destination.

Should we have DEFAULT for explicit default graph?
Mandatory?

	Andy

>
> Regards,
> Paul Gearon
Received on Thursday, 25 March 2010 09:44:34 GMT

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