- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 15:27:25 -0400
- To: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
- Cc: Polleres, Axel <axel.polleres@siemens.com>, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Sorry, that was actually for DB-21. On Fri, 2012-05-11 at 15:26 -0400, David Booth wrote: > Regarding DB-22, I am satisfied with this resolution. > > Thank you, > David > > --------------------- > From: Polleres, Axel <axel.polleres@siemens.com> > Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 08:09:28 +0200 > To: "public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org> > Message-ID: > <9DA51FFE5E84464082D7A089342DEEE80138CF539998@ATVIES9917WMSX.ww300.siemens.net> > Hi David, > > Following your suggestion, we have in the latest Editor's draft at > > http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/update-1.1/Overview.xml#create > > we have changed > > "If the graph already exists, then a failure SHOULD be returned, except > when the SILENT keyword is used." > > to > > "If the graph already exists, then a failure SHOULD be returned, except > when the SILENT keyword is used; in either case, the contents of already > existing graphs remain unchanged." > > > We'd appreciate if you could briefly acknowledge that your comment has > been addressed. > > Axel, on behalf of the SPARQL WG > > > > > At http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-update/#create > > I suggest adding the sentence: "If the graph already exists then its > > content is unchanged." > > > > > > -- > > David Booth, Ph.D. > > http://dbooth.org/ > > > > Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily > > reflect those of his employer. > > -- David Booth, Ph.D. http://dbooth.org/ Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of his employer.
Received on Friday, 11 May 2012 19:27:55 UTC