Re: another update test added (was: RE: Questions on grammar restrictions on Blank Node reuse across...) from Andy Seaborne on 2012-07-10 (public-rdf-dawg@w3.org from July to September 2012)

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 15:00:32 +0100
To: "Polleres, Axel" <axel.polleres@siemens.com>
CC: "greg@evilfunhouse.com" <greg@evilfunhouse.com>, "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4FFC3580.4060101@epimorphics.com>

On 10/07/12 14:52, Polleres, Axel wrote:
> Greg, Andy,
>
> We can further discuss this shortly anyways...
>
> Short summary on top:
>
> The reason why I am insisting on that is that I am afraid, if 05 fails,
> then we have a potential problem with the current definitions in Update. :-|

What is the problem?

The current definitions use substitution in the INSERT template with the 
exact node from the results, not a bNode renaming.

	Andy

Received on Tuesday, 10 July 2012 14:01:12 UTC