W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2011

major open issues SPARQL Update

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 14:31:46 +0100
Message-Id: <B6ACD857-E4D1-412F-AEEF-435D01F1C5D4@deri.org>
To: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
I have to go through the "Open" points from the reviews again once more, 
but I see overall four *major* open issues for Update before we can go to LC:


1) semantics of USING, see also the example I put on 
      http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/To_Last_Call#WG_issues_.26_needed_decisions_2
   USING is the same as FROM, i.e. it allows to explicitly declare a (NEW?) dataset with (NEW?) bnodes.
   how USING/FROM is retrieving constructing that dataset is probably something where we have one coin flip decision to make still:
        a) we prescribe that bnodes in an explicitly declared dataset must be disjoint from the grahp store
        b) we leave that up to the implementation

 When I discussed this with Paul, we came to the following conclusion:  
       a) would mean identical to FROM, 
       b) would leave some more freedom to preserve bnodes.

2) Need to bridge from Syntax to semantics 

 That is, how do we get from an Update request to the respective "update Operation call"?
 I have the following in mind here for each of the subsections of section 4.3:
    - We copy in essence the syntax snippets from Section 3 to section 4 and state how they map to the respective Update Operation call

3) Need to define UpdateRequest as a sequence of UpdateOperations in the formal semantics section... 
    I'd be grateful for ideas how to tackle that...

4) blank nodes in QuadPattern aren't mentioned explicitly in OpDeleteInsert - I think that might need attention


Axel
Received on Tuesday, 26 April 2011 13:32:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:46 GMT