W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2010

datasets in update (was: Re: Review of SPARQL 1.1 Protocol)

From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 16:20:16 -0500
Message-ID: <4B54D090.3060205@thefigtrees.net>
To: Luke Wilson-Mawer <luke.wilson-mawer@garlik.com>
CC: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Luke Wilson-Mawer wrote:

>    * If the INTO in the older update syntax of INSERT INTO <uri> {} is
>      replaced by the user of GRAPH in the new syntax of INSERT {GRAPH
>      <uri> {}}, does this mean that GRAPH is now taking the role of
>      specifying the dataset?  Does this matter, and should it be
>      included here?  Perhaps I've missed something in the dataset
>      conversation.

We're going to remove the parts of the protocol that deal with the 
dataset for now,  but I believe that the dataset issue with Update is 
still unresolved. (Paul, please correct me if you feel otherwise!)

I've brought this up a couple of times (first at the F2F2 and a bit on 
the mailing list since at


and at


The gist of my suggestion is that I would like the ability in SPARQL 
Update to have my update commands act on a subset of the graphs in a 
Graph Store in the same manner that I can (via FROM and FROM NAMED) in 

The reasons I want to be able to do this are twofold:

1) My organization uses this capability in query all the time, and 
SPARQL Update would be pretty much useless to us without this 
capability. (We'd likely implement a non-standard version of SPARQL 
Update that allowed us to do this.)

2) I think it's very odd (and therefore challenging to teach & learn) to 
have two different graph/dataset models for SPARQL Query and SPARQL Update.

Received on Monday, 18 January 2010 21:20:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:01:01 UTC