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

Re: Addressing Greg's update review - part 2... (Re: Review of SPARQL 1.1 Update)

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 23:06:19 +0100
Cc: "SPARQL Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <7F3BA9D2-4694-4793-8827-809BE4E8A79F@deri.org>
To: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
Ok, I addressed that as follows now:

1) I renamed the "basic update operations" (UNION, MERGE, DIFF) just "basic operations" and changed them to operate on pairs of datasets, see
    http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/update-1.1/Overview.xml#formalModelAuxiliary

2) I added a note after the Graph store definition stating that "slightly abusing notation - we will use GS for the graph store and the 
    RDF dataset corresponding to the current graph store content synonymously in subsequent definitions."
   
   http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/update-1.1/Overview.xml#def_graphstore

I think that resolves the problem.

On 26 Apr 2011, at 14:46, Gregory Williams wrote:

> On Apr 25, 2011, at 11:13 PM, Axel Polleres wrote:
> 
> > 16)
> >>> "Dataset(QuadPattern, μ ) = Dataset-UNION ( Dataset(QuadPattern1, μ ) , Dataset(QuadPattern2, μ ) )": The definition of Dataset-UNION in section 4.2.1 is defined as taking one graph store and one dataset as arguments, but here is used with two datasets.
> >
> > *Open: Hmmm, we also say that "i.e., the graph store can be viewed as a mutable RDF dataset" i.e. for the sake of these definitions, I don't really want to make a difference, to be honest, as I am afraid it would further complicate things. I was hoping this is clear enough. Do you consider this remark critical?
> 
> "Critical" might be a bit too far, but I think it's important to fix this, as the text as written conflicts with the earlier definition.
> 
> thanks,
> .greg
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 27 April 2011 22:06:49 GMT

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