- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 19:27:42 +0100
- To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 8 May 2009, at 17:58, Seaborne, Andy wrote: > This is to suggest that we start with a smaller set of capabilities > for update. Sort of split update into "phase 1" and "phase 2". > > Looking back on the discussion, the timescale we have and the > overall set of features, it seems to me that making sure some core > part of update made visible to the community early would be a good > course of action. > > The core might be changes to some graph, without specifying which > graph as part of the update language. This would also help shake > out the alternatives of a non-language based approach although what > I took away is that ideas for a non-language approach do not > immediately extend to collections of graphs without particular > models of relating name to graph (so they aren't a panacea). That sounds good to me. Update without any way to control the graph would be essentially useless to us, but I guess we get the use the dataset features in the protocol to restrict as a workaround, if the WG doesn't get as far as phase 2. - Steve -- Steve Harris Garlik Limited, 2 Sheen Road, Richmond, TW9 1AE, UK +44(0)20 8973 2465 http://www.garlik.com/ Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11 Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
Received on Saturday, 9 May 2009 18:28:17 UTC