Re: Review of "SPARQL 1.1 Update"

On 11/01/2010 1:40 PM, Axel Polleres wrote:
> 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.

The short form of INSERT is always a no-op (caveat bnodes) because if 
the pattern matches, then the data is already in the graph.  I thought 
we were removing it because of the no-op-ness.  At most, it can 
introduce bnodes but with the same triple shapes.

INSERT { :a :p ?B }

INSERT { [] :p ?B } will at most introduce a different bnodes (and it's 
a pun - dual use of the bnode synatx - one use is non-distinguished 
variable in a pattern, one use as a template bnode).

We do have INSERT DATA and DELETE DATA - the important feature being 
they only work on data and which maybe very long so knowing there are no 
variables and it's all ground triples is quite important.

> long form:
>   DELETE {P1}
>   INSERT {P2}
>   WHERE  {P3}
> short forms:
>   ADD {P}
>   REMOVE {P}

And DELETE WHERE {P} - or DELETE otherword {P} - which misses the 
template part that is the duplication - and does not use a completely 
new word.  Emphasises the {P} is still a pattern with variables (albeit 
restricted in form - but the grammar can cope with that).  This 
addresses the issue at the point of concern without cascading to the 
rest of the request.


> just my two cents,
> Axel

Received on Monday, 11 January 2010 14:35:25 UTC