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

Re: Comments on SPARQL 1.1 Update (3)

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2010 13:39:32 +0100
Message-ID: <4C80EC84.9000701@epimorphics.com>
To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
CC: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

On 03/09/10 12:15, Steve Harris wrote:
>> The text is slanted to one style of system.  What about a store that just manages a single graph, as the default graph?  As written, it*must*  create a graph.  That seems a huge burden.  But I'd hope a system allowing update to one graph was could be considered conformant.
> It can always return an error.

Maybe, but the current text (4.1.5) calls it out specifically as a 
requirement and the text in 4.1 needs clarifying.

> Either way you're going to get an error when you try and do that, if the system doesn't support it. MAY seems far too vague for something that falls naturally out of the syntax. If a significant number of implementors say they can't implement this for some reason, then it might be worth considering making it optional, or banning it in the syntax.

What would banning it in syntax look like?

Received on Friday, 3 September 2010 12:40:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:01 UTC