- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2012 10:21:51 +0100
- To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
On 03/07/12 22:39, Paul Gearon wrote: >> >"Blank nodes are prohibited in a DELETE template" >> > >> >Should an application raise an error in this case ? > I presume that is what "prohibited" would mean. We don't define what > happens in the case of a syntax error. This is similar, only > complexity leads to it not being defined in the grammar. > > Unless there is disagreement, I don't plan to define what happens in > the case of something prohibited being detected. > The grammar notes do note this: 9. Blank node syntax is not allowed in DELETE WHERE, the DeleteClause for DELETE, nor in DELETE DATA. so it is a syntax error but not written out in the parser because of the all the very similar, but slightly different, sets of triple patterns that would result. PropertyPath/non-path (templates) is in the grammar. > >> 3.1.4 LOAD >> >> Which format must be supported by LOAD ? >> RDF/XML ? Turtle ? ... > > I don't know that any format MUST be supported. As for those that are > supported, I presume that this is up to the store. Do we need to say > something here? It seems like a rabbit hole, since a complete > discussion could involve mime-types, conneg, links to the various > specs (both old and future), and so on. > I would hope the engine does the appropriate content negotiation. > >> In the future, what will happen if an RDF document that contains named >> graphs is loaded ? > > The sensible thing is that it would go into the graphs with the names > provided in the document. Otherwise, there should be a way to override > this and force the data into a given graph. It may even be desirable > to provide a mapping of graph names into new graph names (or the > default). > > Regardless, this is a good point, and it's not handled by the current > spec. Given that this is due to come out from the RDF WG, shouldn't we > do something about it? Jena has already been asked for this. As there isn't a official standard format, we can skip this. Only a restricted form of LOAD makes sense: LOAD ... INTO ... is meaningless. A different action is one possibility: LOAD DATASET <URL> ; Andy
Received on Wednesday, 4 July 2012 09:22:20 UTC