Re: Review of "SPARQL 1.1 Update"

Without really wanting to decide between "REMOVE" or separators ";" here yet (I am not decided on this, to be honest)...
what I'd find a slight bit strange is that in the first alternative DELETE needs a dedicated keyword in the shortcut 
version, whereas INSERT doesn't. One option to avoid and make it look more consistent could be to also have a dedicted 
keyword for the short form of INSERT, i.e.

long form:

 DELETE {P1}
 INSERT {P2}
 WHERE  {P3}

short forms:

 ADD {P}
 REMOVE {P} 

just my two cents,
Axel


On 11 Jan 2010, at 12:02, Steve Harris wrote:

> On 11 Jan 2010, at 11:57, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>>> I think that introducing ";" for all operations because this one short
>>>> form needs it is not balanced so I'm keen to find a way to avoid that
>>>> necessity.
>>> 
>>> Ah, I was thinking that the last ; would be optional, like . and triples.
>> 
>> I was assuming that also.  It's that every (multi-operation) sequence now needs to have ";"s when the syntax issue is confined to the abbreviated short form of DELETE that strikes me as not ideal.
> 
> Well, the cost is that you have to type a ";", but the advantage it should be clearer to users what the expression means. I don't really see that as a significant cost.
> 
> Alternatives involving scoping brackets or similar require more complex syntactic structures, and affect even single expressions.
> 
>> I also think that multiple operations in one request will not be uncommon.  Basic data loading might be commonly one operation although surely much of the need for SPARQL Update Language is for those operations not done by the HTTP update style.  It will include things like ensuring graphs exist before other operations happen.
> 
> I agree, I'd expect multiple operations to be fairly common.
> 
> - Steve
>

Received on Monday, 11 January 2010 13:41:24 UTC