- From: Alexandre Passant <alexandre.passant@deri.org>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 17:06:47 +0100
- To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Hi, On 27 Jul 2010, at 16:25, Axel Polleres wrote: [...] > > ======================================================================= > > More ISSUEs not yet listed? > > ======================================================================= > ISSUE-A: concrete result format of update We agreed that Update (language-wise) will only return success or failure. Do you want to discuss how to model that in the Protocol or is that another issue ? Alex. > > ======================================================================= > ISSUE-B: Where do we (need to) say something about transactionality? > > We have closed the ISSUES regarding transactionality, but - WHERE do we mention > the conclusion of this discussion, I suggest to add an appendix "Transactionality/Concurrency" to protocol noting: > > "Any compliant SPARQL1.1 implementation SHOULD treat every (HTTP) request atomically. SPARQL1.1 does not specify any further > restrictions regarding transactionality and concurrency, although specific implementations may satisfy stronger guarantees." > > ======================================================================= > > > -- Dr. Alexandre Passant Digital Enterprise Research Institute National University of Ireland, Galway :me owl:sameAs <http://apassant.net/alex> .
Received on Tuesday, 27 July 2010 16:07:20 UTC