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

Re: Comments on SPARQL 1.1 Update (3)

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 20:14:42 -0400
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1283386482.21591.296.camel@waldron>
On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 23:47 +0100, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> 4.1.3 DELETE/INSERT
> 
> [[
> If an operation tries to insert into a graph that does not exist, then 
> that graph *must* be created.
> ]]
> 
> Surely this is wrong? For stores that distinguish empty graphs from 
> non-existent graphs, we have CREATE GRAPH.  Automatic creation is at 
> odds with that setup.

What's the guidance for users who want to write code which works on
either kind of end-point?   Is it always possible to write in a
conservative way which will work on either kind of store?  Or do users
need to detect which kind of server they are talking to and have
branches in their code?   If it is possible to avoid branches, can we
document that style as best practice?    

(I guess we already made this decision, at the moment to me it seems
like a good place to flip a coin and make one kind of end-point go
through the work to emulate the other kind.)

   -- Sandro
Received on Thursday, 2 September 2010 00:15:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:43 GMT