- From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 10:29:40 -0400
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- CC: public-rdf-dawg-comments <public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org>, eric neumann <eneumann@pangenx.com>, Ian Emmons <iemmons@bbn.com>
Hi David, In response to: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2011Sep/0008.html > Therefore, I suggest adding some clarification to this effect at the end > of the first paragraph in section 3.1: > http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-update/#graphUpdate > [[ > If a graph is created implicitly by an update operation, then the > behavior of the Graph Store MUST be functionally equivalent to its > behavior if the graph had been created explicitly by a CREATE operation. > ]] We have adopted this suggestion in the latest editor's draft: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/update-1.1/Overview.xml#graphUpdate and would kindly ask you to acknowledge that this addresses your comment. best, Lee On behalf of the SPARQL WG On 9/13/2011 6:40 PM, David Booth wrote: > The SPARQL Update spec indicates that "If data is inserted into a graph > that does not exist in the graph store, it *should* be created": > http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-update/#insertData > However, I've run into an issue with one implementation (Parliament > 2.7.1) in which the graph *is* created automatically in such > circumstances, but the graph is not persisted in the store unless it was > created explicitly using a CREATE operation. > > For example, the following query creates the named graph whether line 3 > is commented out or not: > > PREFIX test:<http://example/test/> > DROP SILENT GRAPH test: ; > CREATE SILENT GRAPH test: ; # Line 3 > INSERT DATA > { > GRAPH test: { test:foo a test:bar } > } > > But if line 3 is commented out, then the graph is not persisted. > > I consider this a bug (and I assume the Parliament implementers will > also, though I have not heard back from them yet) because it would lead > to substantial compatibility issues for SPARQL update queries if some > implementations persisted the graph and others did not. But AFAICT, the > SPARQL Update spec does not make clear that this behavior is wrong. > > Therefore, I suggest adding some clarification to this effect at the end > of the first paragraph in section 3.1: > http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-update/#graphUpdate > [[ > If a graph is created implicitly by an update operation, then the > behavior of the Graph Store MUST be functionally equivalent to its > behavior if the graph had been created explicitly by a CREATE operation. > ]] > > Thanks! > >
Received on Tuesday, 1 November 2011 17:10:57 UTC