W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > July to September 2012

Re: Action 644 : Review Update

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2012 10:21:51 +0100
Message-ID: <4FF40B2F.7010106@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org


On 03/07/12 22:39, Paul Gearon wrote:
>> >"Blank nodes are prohibited in a DELETE template"
>> >
>> >Should an application raise an error in this case ?
> I presume that is what "prohibited" would mean. We don't define what
> happens in the case of a syntax error. This is similar, only
> complexity leads to it not being defined in the grammar.
>
> Unless there is disagreement, I don't plan to define what happens in
> the case of something prohibited being detected.
>

The grammar notes do note this:


9. Blank node syntax is not allowed in
    DELETE WHERE, the  DeleteClause for DELETE,
    nor in DELETE DATA.
	

so it is a syntax error but not written out in the parser because of the 
all the very similar, but slightly different, sets of triple patterns 
that would result.  PropertyPath/non-path (templates) is in the grammar.

>
>> 3.1.4 LOAD
>>
>> Which format must be supported by LOAD ?
>> RDF/XML ? Turtle ? ...
>
> I don't know that any format MUST be supported. As for those that are
> supported, I presume that this is up to the store. Do we need to say
> something here? It seems like a rabbit hole, since a complete
> discussion could involve mime-types, conneg, links to the various
> specs (both old and future), and so on.
>

I would hope the engine does the appropriate content negotiation.

>
>> In the future, what will happen if an RDF document that contains named
>> graphs is loaded ?
>
> The sensible thing is that it would go into the graphs with the names
> provided in the document. Otherwise, there should be a way to override
> this and force the data into a given graph. It may even be desirable
> to provide a mapping of graph names into new graph names (or the
> default).
>
> Regardless, this is a good point, and it's not handled by the current
> spec. Given that this is due to come out from the RDF WG, shouldn't we
> do something about it?

Jena has already been asked for this.

As there isn't a official standard format, we can skip this.

Only a restricted form of LOAD makes sense:

LOAD ... INTO ... is meaningless.

A different action is one possibility:

LOAD DATASET <URL> ;

	Andy
Received on Wednesday, 4 July 2012 09:22:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:48 GMT