- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 08:53:42 -0400
- To: "Polleres, Axel" <axel.polleres@siemens.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments <public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org>
Hi Axel, No, I think that wording still needs to be corrected, because the sentence does not limit that clause to the case of empty graphs. I suggest qualifying that clause as follows: [[ Since (non graph-aware) Graph Stores may remove graphs that are left empty, for such Graph Stores any CreateOperation performed on an empty or non-existent graph may be viewed as implicitly immediately followed by a DropOperation (see next subsection), or simply as an operation with no effect. ]] Thanks, David On Mon, 2012-05-14 at 08:36 +0200, Polleres, Axel wrote: > Dear David, > > As for the paragraph you quote: > > > However, I just noticed the "Note" below that section, which > > says that any CREATE may be viewed as immediately followed by a DROP: > > [[ > > Since (non graph-aware) Graph Stores may remove graphs that > > are left empty, for such Graph Stores any CreateOperation may > > be viewed as implicitly immediately followed by a > > DropOperation (see next subsection), or simply as an > > operation with no effect. > > ]] > > Please note that it says explicitly here that > > "(non graph-aware) Graph Stores may remove graphs > *that are left empty* " > > Thus, existing contents (i.e. non-empty graphs) > wouldn't be possibly affected. > > Please let us know whether this response > Addresses/clarifies your concern. > > Best regards, > Axel > > -- 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 Monday, 14 May 2012 12:54:22 UTC