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

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

From: Alexandre Passant <Alexandre.Passant@deri.org>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 08:00:49 +0100
Cc: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <D930FDBB-8020-404A-A387-3AAEEFA63DD8@deri.org>
To: Paul Gearon <pgearon@revelytix.com>
I'm OK with the changes for MS answer, I've just sent it

Alex.

On 4 May 2011, at 01:07, Paul Gearon wrote:

> 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 07:01:17 GMT

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