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

Re: ACTION-453 ... checking Update relevant outstanding comments

From: Paul Gearon <pgearon@revelytix.com>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 20:07:00 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTimu9_xO4JAmLvE11NHgs0xMWh5gLA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Cc: Alexandre Passant <Alexandre.Passant@deri.org>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
I have checked through each of these and am mostly happy with the responses.

I have added a line to ST-1 indicating that while we do not fully
support the functionality of a DROP/WHERE operation, we will not be
adding it in this version.

I will send out HK-2, ST-1, and RN-1, as they were originally written
by me. Alex, can you send MS-1 please?

Also, this is to confirm as per ACTION-453 that there are no LC
blocking issues in these comments

Regards,
Paul Gearon

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org> wrote:
> I re-checked outstanding Update comments, as detailed below.
>
> Some of the response drafts were lying around a bit too long, so I updated them to the latest status
> and would  encourage replies to this email approving to send the responses out (we really should get
> those responses out of the way, before the LC comments come in).
>
> best,
> Axel
>
>  1) http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:RN-1
>
>  I modified the answer about blank nodes in DELETE templates, as we finally went for forbidding them,
>  and modified the answer about LOAD SILENT, which we now allow
>  also I added some few  explaining words here and there.
>
>  2) http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:ST-1
>
>  I did only some minor rewording, but I am good with that response to be sent off.
>
>  3) http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:MS-1
>
>  I changed mainly:
>
>  'We will clarify that in the SPARQL 1.1 Update document, in section 2.2.
>
>   "SPARQL 1.1 Update operation are non-recursive, which means that the resulting (inserted) triples are not matched at a later stage in the query patterns"
>  '
>  since that sentence is no longer in the spec. Rather, I changed this to:
>
>  '
>  The new section "4 SPARQL Update Formal Model" in the SPARQL 1.1 Update document (see http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/update-1.1/#formalModel for the current Editor's draft) shall clarify this behaviour.
>  '
>
>  4) http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:HK-2
>
>  Also added a hint to the new formal model and added a note that we moved the INSERT and DELETE sections into subsections of INSERT/DELETE
>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 4 May 2011 00:07:28 GMT

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