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

Re: SPARQL Update Editorial issue/ SPARQL Grammar suggestion in the context of Update (LOAD INTO iri vs. LOAD INTO GRAPH iri)

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 07:51:05 +0100
Message-Id: <AD0F51F2-C45B-41FD-923A-75F6E9F54CE3@garlik.com>
To: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
+1

On 5 Jul 2012, at 15:15, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:

> I generally think that having "WHERE" optional in the query language is a little silly, so would not be in favor of adding new optional keywords in the same way...
> 
> Lee
> 
> On 7/5/2012 9:18 AM, Polleres, Axel wrote:
>> Thanks Andy,
>> 
>> Fair points... Any other opinions? I wouldn't want to risk another LC for update and, in case we see implementations to allow skipping "GRAPH" later on, a future WG could still standardize that without Backwards compatibility problems, right?
>> 
>> So, I'll just do the editorial fix in
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-update/#mappingRequestsToOperations
>> 
>> Best,
>> Axel
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Dr. Axel Polleres
>> Siemens AG Österreich
>> Corporate Technology Central Eastern Europe Research & Technologies
>> CT T CEE
>> 
>> Tel.: +43 (0) 51707-36983
>> Mobile: +43 (0) 664 88550859
>> Fax: +43 (0) 51707-56682 mailto:axel.polleres@siemens.com
>> 
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Andy Seaborne [mailto:andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com]
>>> Sent: Thursday, 5 July 2012 3:07 PM
>>> To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
>>> Subject: Re: SPARQL Update Editorial issue/ SPARQL Grammar
>>> suggestion in the context of Update (LOAD INTO iri vs. LOAD
>>> INTO GRAPH iri)
>>> 
>>> As a change it seems OK but it's rather late in the cycle.
>>> Can we legitimately reply to comments making suggestions
>>> saying "sorry - it's late" if we ourselves are fine tuning
>>> things.  It's not broken.
>>> 
>>> This would require a new LC for Update, in my opinion,
>>> because implementations would be changed.
>>> 
>>>>>   Update:
>>>>>     mark the GRAPH keyword optional in Section 3.1.4 LOAD,
>>>>> 3.1.5 CLEAR, 3.2.1 CREATE, 3.2.2 DROP
>>> and it is a material change to the update doc itself (I don't
>>> think the grammar being in query means that we can use that
>>> when update-only language syntax is changed).
>>> 
>>> And inline ...
>>> 
>>> On 05/07/12 11:01, Polleres, Axel wrote:
>>>> Sorry, missed something here:
>>>> 
>>>>> The implied changes would be:
>>>>> 
>>>>>   Query:
>>>>> 
>>>>      only the suggested grammar change (since GraphRef is
>>> only used by Update-relevant
>>>>      grammar productions and thus doesn't otherwise affect
>>> the query document, as far as I can see)
>>>>      [...]
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Axel
>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Polleres, Axel
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, 5 July 2012 11:52 AM
>>>>> To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
>>>>> Subject: SPARQL Update Editorial issue/ SPARQL Grammar
>>> suggestion in
>>>>> the context of Update (LOAD INTO iri vs. LOAD INTO GRAPH iri)
>>>>> 
>>>>> A student of mine just pointed me to a small thing which I
>>> wanted to
>>>>> ask your opinions on:
>>>>> For  DROP, CLEAR, CREATE, and LOAD  the GRAPH keyword is
>>> obligatory,
>>>>> i.e. you have to write:
>>>>>    DROP GRAPH iri
>>>>>    LOAD INTO GRAPH iri
>>>>> ...
>>>>> but can't simply write
>>>>>    DROP iri
>>>>>    LOAD INTO iri
>>>>> 
>>>>> The student realized this, since we have some example in
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-update/#mappingRequestsToOperati
>>>>> ons in Table 1 where we forgot the GRAPH keyword...
>>> Editorial - fix it regardless, - in any case, theyshould use
>>> the full forms for clarity.
>>> 
>>>>> Couldn't we make 'GRAPH' optional here, just as 'WHERE' is
>>> optional
>>>>> in WhereClause, i.e. change the GraphRef production
>>>>> 
>>>>> s/
>>>>>   [46]  GraphRef  ::=  'GRAPH' iri
>>>>> /
>>>>>   [46]  GraphRef  ::=  'GRAPH'? iri
>>>>> /
>>>>> 
>>>>> This would seem to be a minor, but handy change and still
>>> possible as
>>>>> long as we are still before LC publication for the grammar
>>> along with
>>>>> the Query document: I think making the GRAPH keyword OPTIONAL here
>>>>> would still be a minor enough change for Update to call it
>>>>> "editorial", since it doesn't invalidate anything from the LC
>>>>> version.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The implied changes would be:
>>>>> 
>>>>>   Query:
>>>>> 
>>>>>   Update:
>>>>>     mark the GRAPH keyword optional in Section 3.1.4 LOAD,
>>>>> 3.1.5 CLEAR, 3.2.1 CREATE, 3.2.2 DROP
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Please note that the GRAPH keyword is already optional in
>>> ADD, MOVE,
>>>>> COPY, cf.
>>>>> 
>>>>>     [45]  GraphOrDefault  ::=  'DEFAULT' | 'GRAPH'? Iri
>>>>> 
>>>>> So, I think this minor change would make the Update language more
>>>>> coherent, or would there be any problems with it?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> Axel
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> Dr. Axel Polleres
>>>>> Siemens AG Österreich
>>>>> Corporate Technology Central Eastern Europe Research &
>>> Technologies
>>>>> CT T CEE
>>>>> 
>>>>> Tel.: +43 (0) 51707-36983
>>>>> Mobile: +43 (0) 664 88550859
>>>>> Fax: +43 (0) 51707-56682 mailto:axel.polleres@siemens.com
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Steve Harris, CTO
Garlik, a part of Experian 
1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
+44 20 8439 8203  http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 653331 VAT # 887 1335 93
Registered office: Landmark House, Experian Way, NG2 Business Park, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, England NG80 1ZZ
Received on Monday, 9 July 2012 06:51:37 GMT

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