- From: Paul Gearon <gearon@ieee.org>
- Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:11:23 -0500
- To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Cc: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com> wrote:
> On 21 Nov 2009, at 16:57, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Last week's minutes are at
>> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-11-17 . Thanks to Paul for
>> scribing.
>>
>> As we discussed on the call, I'm looking for editors (other than query) to
>> suggest any topics that we might fruitfully discuss on Tuesday's call. Right
>> now, I'm looking at the questions that Greg's identified with respect to
>> dataset descriptions in Service Description, and the suggested proposal
>> Kjetil's brought up for DELETE syntax.
I've been a little confused about the desired syntax for a few
elements of UPDATE (though I've started working with my own idea of
what the majority like). So it would be nice to get that ironed out.
> Another thing we could discuss is FROM v's GRAPH syntax in Update, eg
>
> 1) DELETE FROM <uri> { ?x ?y ?z } WHERE { GRAPH <uri> { ?x ?y ?z } }
> and
> 2) DELETE { GRAPH <uri> { ?x ?y ?z } } WHERE { GRAPH <uri> { ?x ?y ?z } }
>
> (potentially same as DELETE WHERE { GRAPH <uri> { ?x ?y ?z } })
>
> FWIW, I prefer the 2) form, I find it clearer.
I don't see technical merits of one over the other (unless I'm missing
something), so it can go either way.
I like the structure of (1) more, as it is closer to the syntax of
existing forms. However, (2) is structured a little more consistently,
so I see the appeal there. Since I prefer consistency across the board
over style, then I'm leaning towards (1).
Regards,
Paul Gearon
Received on Monday, 23 November 2009 16:12:08 UTC