- From: Paul Gearon <gearon@ieee.org>
- Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 16:54:20 -0500
- To: Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetil@kjernsmo.net>
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Sorry for not responding before now....
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 5:03 AM, Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetil@kjernsmo.net> wrote:
> On Thursday 3. December 2009 02:44:27 Paul Gearon wrote:
>> Are you suggesting using FROM to indicate what the WHERE clause should
>> be resolved against? If so, then sure. However, the advantage of WITH
>> is that it also applies to INSERT and DELETE where no graph is
>> supplied. In that case, the word "FROM" isn't appropriate. WITH is a
>> little more general, even if it's not very pretty.
>
> Contrary to Steve, I cannot say that I think I can say "I see", let me ask
> some silly questions: :-)
>
> The consensus is that FROM will only apply to the WHERE clause, never
> anything else, right?
I believe so. I can't recall anything else we've considered using it on.
> Then, we have
> INSERT { GRAPH <foo> { pattern
> which is used to specify that the INSERTions go into graph <foo> ?
Yes.
> So, WITH, is that supposed to make it possible to name both the graph
> matched in the WHERE clause and the graph inserted into, or just the
> latter?
The former (ie. both). However, using "GRAPH <uri> { ... }" in either
the INSERT or the WHERE clause will override whatever was specified in
a WITH clause. In one sense, it is like specifying FROM in a SELECT
query. It specifies the graph(s) to use when nothing is given
explicitly.
Regards,
Paul Gearon
Received on Monday, 21 December 2009 21:54:53 UTC