- From: Polleres, Axel <axel.polleres@siemens.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 09:17:14 +0200
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- CC: public-rdf-dawg-comments <public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org>
Dear David, > 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, I have taken your suggested wording into account as an editorial change reflected in the current Editors' Draft at: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/update-1.1/Overview.xml Additionally, I also made a clarifying edit to the similar note on the ClearOperation, by changing ---------------------- Since (non graph-aware) Graph Stores may remove graphs that are left empty, for such Graph Stores any ClearOperation may be viewed as immediately followed by a DropOperation, see below. ---------------------- to ---------------------- Since (non graph-aware) Graph Stores may remove graphs that are left empty, for such Graph Stores any ClearOperation performed on a named graph may be viewed as immediately followed by a DropOperation, see below. ---------------------- Please let us know whether this response Addresses/clarifies your concern. Axel -- 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: David Booth [mailto:david@dbooth.org] > Sent: Monday, 14 May 2012 2:54 PM > To: Polleres, Axel > Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments > Subject: RE: Editorial suggestion for CREATE operation > > 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 Wednesday, 16 May 2012 07:17:51 UTC