Re: Resolution for ISSUE-37

ok, will hold back further comments until I get your ok to re-check.

Axel

On 30 Sep 2010, at 18:24, Alexandre Passant wrote:

> 
> 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 Friday, 1 October 2010 00:59:16 UTC