- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 20:56:39 +0100
- To: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- Cc: dawg mailing list <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 22 Aug 2006, at 18:36, Kendall Clark wrote:
>
>
> On Aug 17, 2006, at 6:05 AM, Steve Harris wrote:
>
>> I only just noticed that WHERE is optional in the grammar. For the
>> record I suspect this is not a good idea, and we shouldn't do it
>> in testcases.
>
> Steve, can you say more about this?
I prefer it if the tests are canonical, and making the keyword
optional seems like it might make possible future expansions in that
area harder, though I haven't given that much thought to it.
Imagine we added a keyword DELETE:
DELETE { GRAPH ?g { ?x rdf:type :bar } } WHERE { GRAPH ?g { ?x
rdf:type :foo . ?x rdf:type :bar } }
Then being able to omit the WHERE makes the query hard to understand,
and making it optional only in SELECT clauses before it is wierd, IMHO:
DELETE { GRAPH ?g { ?x rdf:type :bar } } { GRAPH ?g { ?x
rdf:type :foo . ?x rdf:type :bar } }
- Steve
Received on Tuesday, 22 August 2006 19:56:17 UTC