W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > October to December 2009

Re: ISSUE-48: Less verbose delete syntax

From: Paul Gearon <gearon@ieee.org>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 15:22:56 -0500
Message-ID: <a25ac1f0911091222n16c5b2c9k5f4cfd936e0f9ab3@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetil@kjernsmo.net>
Cc: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetil@kjernsmo.net> wrote:
> On Monday 9. November 2009 18:36:05 Paul Gearon wrote:


>> Going the way that has been suggested in this thread, it appears that
>> we are trying to infer a template out of a pattern from a WHERE
>> clause. This seems excessively difficult, and not possible for a
>> completely general pattern.
> ...then I don't understand why you didn't write that
> DELETE {template} WHERE {template}
> should be equivalent to
> DELETE WHERE {template}
> since the template surely doesn't contain all the complexity of the
> pattern, right?

That was probably more appropriate, yes. I was writing "pattern" here
with the implicit assumption that it was within the subset of patterns
that also form valid templates because they're getting used in the
template position as well as the WHERE clause.

>> So to summarize, I'd like to see a "DELETE WHERE" shorthand for simple
>> deletions where the template and pattern are identical, but not for
>> anything else. If more is needed, then there's the longer form to work
>> with.
> Well, Andy and Steve has already getting started and have mentioned
> allowing just a BGP too, but yeah, I can live with your proposal, as long
> as we keep an issue open for a fuller graph pattern for a time-permitting,
> or more likely for SPARQL 1.2.

It may well be something worthwhile for SPARQL 1.2, though I do find
myself wondering if the complexity of this syntactic extension is
worth the effort.

> I think that the goal isn't in this round to ensure that DELETE WHERE can
> do as much as  DELETE {template} WHERE {pattern} can do, the goal is to
> have a shorthand that can do very easily what you would do in a large
> number of situations.

That's why I support the shorthand for this round.

Paul Gearon
Received on Monday, 9 November 2009 20:23:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:00:57 UTC