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

Re: Agenda 2010-10-19

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 14:47:11 +0100
Message-ID: <4CBDA15F.5010007@epimorphics.com>
To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
CC: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>


On 19/10/10 14:30, Axel Polleres wrote:
> On 19 Oct 2010, at 10:16, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>
>> The manifest uses both ut:graph and ut:data with ut:graphData.
>
> Ah, gotcha! obviously ut:graph was wrong, thanks for the catch... fixed.

The use of ut:data in two different ways is wrong, not unworkable but 
confusing.  It's used twice with different domain and ranges.  And 
neither domain is a :UpdateTest which is what the vocabulary says.

The README compounds this:
[[
In the case of absence of both ut:data and ut:graphData properties 
within the mf:result, the graph store is supposed to be empty after 
execution of the update.
]]

Change ut:data when used on a ut:graphData to ut:contents or something. 
  It would be confusing to chnage the other use of u:data to something 
else because of qt:data

	Andy

PS

[[
at most one ut:data property denoting the unnamed graph
]]
probably does not matter but why only one?  Why not the RDF merge of 
several?  Actually, if we test for USING, this might matter.
Received on Tuesday, 19 October 2010 13:47:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:44 GMT