Re: Resolution for ISSUE-37

On 30 Sep 2010, at 08:04, Steve Harris wrote:

> On 2010-09-29, at 18:55, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
> 
>> On 9/29/2010 1:42 PM, Alexandre Passant wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> I'm checking current issues in the Update doc, and see that ISSUE-37 is closed.
>>> 
>>> RESOLVED: close ISSUE-37 by adding a note to Update mentioning possible feedback effects
>>> +
>>> ACTION: paul to add a note on possible feedback effects of federated queries in update (ACTION-289)
>>> 
>>> Do Paul or anyone remind what we meant by "feedback effects" here ?
>>> Seems to relate to atomicity ?
>> 
>> The use case in question involved using SERVICE in the WHERE clause of an update operation, I believe.
> 
> That's correct. Different levels of atomicity could lead different stores to return different results.

Here's what I added

Initial text:

Each request <strong>should</strong> be treated atomically by a SPARQL 1.1 Update service. Any resulting concurrency issues will be a matter for each implementation to consider according to its own architecture. 

Added:

However, using SERVICE in the WHERE clause of an Update request may lead to unexpected results in terms of atomicity, leading to different stores to return different results.</p>

Alex.


> 
> - Steve
> 
> -- 
> Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited
> 1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
> +44 20 8439 8203  http://www.garlik.com/
> Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
> Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
> 

--
Dr. Alexandre Passant
Digital Enterprise Research Institute
National University of Ireland, Galway
:me owl:sameAs <http://apassant.net/alex> .

Received on Thursday, 30 September 2010 22:24:57 UTC