- From: Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 16:11:53 +1000
- To: "Polleres, Axel" <axel.polleres@siemens.com>
- Cc: "public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org>
Hi Axel,
Does this editorial change imply that my query about the SPARQL 1.1
Update Delete Insert order [1] resulted in no change? Ie, if both
Delete and Insert are in the same query then Delete must come first.
Thanks,
Peter
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2012Feb/0011.html
On 2 May 2012 15:55, Polleres, Axel <axel.polleres@siemens.com> wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> Thanks for spotting this. The error has been fixed in the current Editor's
> draft at
>
> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/update-1.1/Overview.xml#deleteInsert
>
> We'd appreciate if you could briefly acknowledge that your comment has been
> addressed.
>
> Axel, on behalf of the SPARQL WG
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Section
> http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-update/#deleteInsert
> says:
> [[
> To illustrate the use of the WITH clause, an operation of the general
> form:
>
> WITH <g1> INSERT { x y z } DELETE { a b c } WHERE { ... }
>
> Is considered equivalent to:
>
> INSERT { GRAPH <g1> { x y z } } DELETE { GRAPH <g1> { a b c } } USING <g1>
> WHERE { ... }
> ]]
>
> However, the grammar requires that the DELETE clause *precede* the
> INSERT clause:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/#rModify
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2012 06:12:25 UTC