- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 08:54:31 +0100
- To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Cc: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
On 2011-08-29, at 18:19, Lee Feigenbaum wrote: > On 8/29/2011 12:58 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote: >> >> >> On 16/08/11 03:11, Lee Feigenbaum wrote: >>> 1/ The parameters are called using-graph-uri and using-named-graph-uri >>> >>> 2/ If at least one value for one of the parameters is present, then the >>> protocol parameters fully define the RDF dataset that is used for the >>> query pattern matching (WHERE clause) of all operations in the update >>> request. That is, they fully replace all USING and USING NAMED clauses >>> in the request's operations. >>> >>> A third way of stating this: the semantics of including at least one of >>> using-graph-uri and using-named-graph-uri is the equivalent of doing the >>> following: >>> >>> A) Remove all USING clauses from the request. >>> B) Remove all USING NAMED clauses from the request. >>> C) For each using-graph-uri=u in the protocol request >>> For each INSERT/DELETE/INSERT DELETE operation in the request >>> Add "USING u" to the operation >>> D) For each using-named-graph-uri=u in the protocol request >>> For each INSERT/DELETE/INSERT DELETE operation in the request >>> Add "USING NAMED u" to the operation >>> >>> >>> Protocol says nothing further about the semantics of these parameters -- >>> everything else is based on the semantics already given for USING and >>> USING NAMED in SPARQL 1.1 Update. This includes things like whether >>> "USING x" mentioned repeatedly in an update request refers to a mutable >>> graph or a graph as retrieved from the Web; this includes things like >>> the interaction between these parameters and WITH. >>> >>> Our options at this point: >>> >>> + Discuss any questions >>> + Consider any alternative proposals >>> + Consider dropping these parameters altogether >>> + Consider adopting this proposal >> >> This does not address my concern that an update of several operations >> may have different USING clauses in different operations. Overridding >> any USING, and changing operations that don't mention USING, makes it, >> to me, a different situation to query. The structure of the update >> request is changed. > > I don't understand this concern; if you don't want to override them, then don't use this feature. Just because it can be misused doesn't mean it should be an error, right? There is some logic to that, failing the operation, rather than silently ignoring the request is probably more helpful. - 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
Received on Tuesday, 30 August 2011 07:54:54 UTC