- From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 10:52:14 -0300
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Cc: "SPARQL Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 19 Oct 2010, at 10:47, Andy Seaborne wrote: > > > On 19/10/10 14:30, Axel Polleres wrote: > > On 19 Oct 2010, at 10:16, Andy Seaborne wrote: > > > >> The manifest uses both ut:graph and ut:data with ut:graphData. > > > > Ah, gotcha! obviously ut:graph was wrong, thanks for the catch... fixed. > > The use of ut:data in two different ways is wrong, not unworkable but > confusing. It's used twice with different domain and ranges. A simple solution would be to remove the domain restriction for ut:data... Axel > And > neither domain is a :UpdateTest which is what the vocabulary says. > > The README compounds this: > [[ > In the case of absence of both ut:data and ut:graphData properties > within the mf:result, the graph store is supposed to be empty after > execution of the update. > ]] > > Change ut:data when used on a ut:graphData to ut:contents or something. > It would be confusing to chnage the other use of u:data to something > else because of qt:data > > Andy > > PS > > [[ > at most one ut:data property denoting the unnamed graph > ]] > probably does not matter but why only one? Why not the RDF merge of > several? Actually, if we test for USING, this might matter. >
Received on Tuesday, 19 October 2010 13:53:33 UTC