- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@talis.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 09:38:47 +0000
- To: Paul Gearon <gearon@ieee.org>
- CC: sparql Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 24/03/2010 23:18, Paul Gearon wrote: > On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Andy Seaborne<andy.seaborne@talis.com> wrote: >> >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: SPARQL update (draft) question on LOAD uris >> Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 08:25:49 -0700 >> From: Dave Beckett<dave@dajobe.org> >> To: Andy Seaborne<andy@seaborne.org> >> >> Are these two work-in-progress SPARQL 1.1 update operations intended to have >> the same semantics? >> >> 1) >> LOAD<uri1> <uri2> <uri3> >> >> >> 2) >> LOAD<uri1> >> LOAD<uri2> >> LOAD<uri3> >> >> ? > > > While not specified, I'm fine with this. Sorry - missed that - when did it change? (I'd mildly prefer multiple names just for convenience - but I'd also like that for FROM as well). >> (INTO<graph> is not relevant here I hope) > > This bothers me. Why wouldn't it be relevant? Of course, if it's > missing, then the data is to be loaded into the default graph, but > otherwise the destination graph would be required, right? If it's > there, then would it only be issued once (meaning that a LOAD can only > load data into one graph), or would it be required for each URI to be > loaded? My understanding is that the Q was about multiple loads, not the destination. Should we have DEFAULT for explicit default graph? Mandatory? Andy > > Regards, > Paul Gearon
Received on Thursday, 25 March 2010 09:44:34 UTC