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

RE: 2 New INSERT DATA test cases (was: Test case proposal in the context of RV-10: insert-data-same-bnode)

From: Polleres, Axel <axel.polleres@siemens.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 13:43:48 +0200
To: "andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com" <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9DA51FFE5E84464082D7A089342DEEE80149E2E79AE4@ATVIES9917WMSX.ww300.siemens.net>
Dear Andy,

Just to clarify: this means that you agree that

  INSERT  DATA { GRAPH :g1  { _:b :p :o } };
  INSERT  DATA { GRAPH :g2  { _:b :p :o } }

would behave differently from

  INSERT  { GRAPH :g1  { _:b :p :o } } WHERE {};
  INSERT  { GRAPH :g2  { _:b :p :o } } WHERE {}

yes?


Thanks,
Axel


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Seaborne [mailto:andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com]
> Sent: Montag, 01. Oktober 2012 13:38
> To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: 2 New INSERT DATA test cases (was: Test case
> proposal in the context of RV-10: insert-data-same-bnode)
>
>
>
> On 01/10/12 12:17, Polleres, Axel wrote:
> > Dear Olivier,
> >
> > Thanks for joining the discussion!
> >
> > The test cases were created under the understanding that bnodes are
> > scoped over the whole request (cf. clarifying rewording in
> Update and
> > draft response to RV-10) [1,2]. If there's no agreement
> here, then we
> > have to change the definitions in Update, and apparently,
> > implementations which passs the Suggested test cases would
> need to be changed.
> >
> > As for your suggested additional case, I think this is a tricky one:
> >
> >> INSERT  { GRAPH :g1  { _:b :p :o } } WHERE {}; INSERT  {
> GRAPH :g2  {
> >> _:b :p :o } } WHERE {}
> >
> > According to my reading of our definitions, this depends on
> whether we
> > view the two empty mappings returned by the two WHERE clauses as
> > identical or Different, since the skolem function sk in
> >
> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/update-1.1/Overview.xml#def_dataset
> > QuadPattern is unique to the request and the mapping (this
> behaviour
> > is analogous to CONSTRUCT)
>
> In a SPARQL Construct different bNodes are generated for each
> occurrence of a solution mapping even in the same query.
>
> If the WHERE matches with two empty rows:
>
> row1 = {}
> row2 = {}
>
> then
>
> CONSTRUCT { _:a :p :o }
>
> generates two triples with two different bNodes as subjects.
>
> So within the same WHERE clause the same-by-value binding
> generates different bNodes.
>
> Therefore only (2) makes sense to me.  Defining in terms of
> operations is enough.
>
>       Andy
>
>
Received on Monday, 1 October 2012 11:44:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:49 GMT