Re: Comments on SPARQL draft (pt. 1) (insert)

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 14:03:43 -0600, Dan Connolly <> wrote:

> insert/update isn't among our requirements or even objectives
> so far. i.e. the WG seems to think we can advance the state of the
> art without doing INSERT just yet. If you think W3C shouldn't do
> a QL at all without insert, please elaborate.

Thanks Dan, the charter's the charter. I'm sure the language will be
advancing the state of the art, INSERT or not. But I wonder if there
would be as many RDBMS-backed Web sites if SQL didn't have INSERT (and



Received on Monday, 21 March 2005 20:40:51 UTC