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

Re: Agenda 2010-10-19

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 10:52:14 -0300
Cc: "SPARQL Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <01EDCB14-12C9-492B-A879-C22FF1A34DC7@deri.org>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>

On 19 Oct 2010, at 10:47, Andy Seaborne wrote:

> 
> 
> 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.

A simple solution would be to remove the domain restriction for ut:data...

Axel

>  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 13:53:33 GMT

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