thoughts on updates containing bad triples

I just made the following formal comment:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2014Jan/0002.html

This is a comment concerning 

http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-sparql11-update-20130321/#deleteInsert

[[
If any solution produces a triple containing an unbound variable or an illegal RDF construct, such as a literal in a subject or predicate position, then that triple is not included when processing the operation: INSERT will not instantiate new data in the output graph, and DELETE will not remove anything.
]]

I believe the intention is:
[[
If any solution produces a triple containing an unbound variable or an illegal RDF construct, such as a literal in a subject or predicate position, then that triple is not included when processing the operation: INSERT will not instantiate new data corresponding to the triple, and DELETE will not remove anything corresponding to the triple.
]]


My reason for this belief is based on the informative text:

http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-sparql11-update-20130321/#insert
[[
If any instantiation arising from the solution sequence produces a triple containing an unbound variable or an illegal RDF construct, such as a literal in subject or predicate position, then that triple is not inserted. The template can contain triples with no variables (known as ground or explicit triples), and these will also be inserted, provided that the solution sequence is not empty.
]]
which seems to indicate that the normative text "INSERT will not instantiate new data in the output graph" is too strong.


Do people agree with my reading here?  that a single bad triple doesn't make a bad update …

thanks

Jeremy


Jeremy J Carroll
Principal Architect
Syapse, Inc.