Re: Updates

On 3 Dec 2009, at 10:27, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> On 01/12/2009 17:23, Paul Gearon wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 8:58 AM, Andy  
>> Seaborne<andy.seaborne@talis.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>> I confess I don't see the arbitrary order of INSERTs and DELETEs  
>>> as very
>>> clear.  Is there a reason for multiple INSERTs and DELETEs, and  
>>> allowing
>>> INSERTs before DELETEs?
>>
>> The request seems to have two motivations, both based on modifying
>> more than one graph at a time. The first is that it provides a syntax
>> for specifying several graphs (though allowing "GRAPH<uri>  {...}"
>> into the template would also provide this).
>>
>> The second was to address public concerns that we've had about lack  
>> of
>> transaction support. This didn't make it into the mailing list, but  
>> we
>> were grilled on it at ISWC. The most vocal concern came from Abraham
>> Bernstein. Should I ask him to write something formal? (I'm surprised
>> he hasn't already).
>
> There are several aspects to providing transactions.  If we are  
> addressing transactions, then we need to decide what the problem  
> space we are addressing. We seem to be in similar position to query  
> here - there are many features so either we take longer and do more,  
> or shorter and expect a later WG to continue the work.  We need to  
> decide explicitly on the scope.
>
> Having a single block of INSERT/DELETEs ties to a single WHERE isn't  
> general. Was having explicit BEGIN-COMMIT/ABORT words with a per- 
> service declaration of what they mean considered?

My impression was that Abraham wanted transactions with defined  
semantics, as per SQL.

- Steve

-- 
Steve Harris, CTO, 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 Thursday, 3 December 2009 11:03:04 UTC