Re: Pending issues for update

Hi everyone,

Thanks, Paul.

Everyone: We're going to devote Tuesday's teleconference to discussing 
these issues, so please take a look at them in advance of then.

Lee

On 2/16/2010 10:05 AM, Paul Gearon wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Axel asked me to post the remaining issues for Update.
>
> The top issues from my perspective are:
>
> - DELETE syntax is ambiguous. should statements be separable with
> optional semicolons? Or is another syntax option better? This was
> discussed, but I wasn't clear on the outcome.
>
> - ISSUE-20. Are there differences between an empty graph and a
> non-existent graph? I like to think so, but didn't see a consensus.
> This issue affects the need for CREATE and DROP graph operations, and
> controls whether or not INSERT/DELETE control graph existence.
>
> - Are blank nodes permissible in the template for DELETE? There was
> some discussion, but if there was a resolution then I missed it.
>
> - ISSUE-51. Shall dataset clauses be allowed in SPARQL/Update? This is
> one Lee raised, so he should have good comments on it. This is also
> one of those areas where new syntax has been proposed that I think
> makes sense.
>
>
> The remaining issues:
>
> - We need the grammar defined. That depends heavily on the above issues.
>
> - ISSUE-28. What happens if entailed triples are DELETEd? I presume
> this is equivalent to an no-op, but there is no resolution recorded.
>
> - ISSUE-37. How does basic federated query interact with
> SPARQL/Update? Personally I don't see the problem, but the issue is
> still listed as open.
>
> - We need a definition of SPARQL Update requests.
>
> - ISSUE-26. How far do we go with transactions/atomicity?
>
> - ISSUE-18. Are there concurrency issues to be addressed?
>
> - Need a mention of what happens when a document is only partially loaded.
>
> - Need to discuss the implications (or limits) of the CLEAR command on
> the default graph on services that form the default from a union of
> other graphs.
>
> - ISSUE-19. What are the security issues around SPARQL Update?
>
>
> Regards,
> Paul Gearon
>
>

Received on Friday, 19 February 2010 21:35:36 UTC