- From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 16:20:16 -0500
- 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 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009OctDec/0503.html and at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009OctDec/0581.html 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 SPARQL Query. 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. Lee
Received on Monday, 18 January 2010 21:20:56 UTC