- From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 11:25:27 +0100
- To: Florian Kleedorfer <florian.kleedorfer@austria.fm>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Simon.Cox@csiro.au
- CC: semantic-web@w3.org
On 10/07/2017 09:24, Florian Kleedorfer wrote: > If it was a problem, it seems to me, RDF databases were wrong to support SPARQL > Update, because it allows changes to RDF graphs - but I never read anywhere that > that is problematic. > SPARQL Update allows updates to RDF graph containers, not to RDF graphs. So no problem there (apart, maybe, from some unclear or muddled use of terminology). I just checked the SPARQL Update spec [1], and I'd concede the language could be clearer... "A Graph Store is a mutable container of RDF graphs..." is clear enough. But a following sentence says "Operations may specify graphs to be modified...", which is less clear. Read in conunction with the definition of graph in RDF Concepts [2], it becomes fairly clear that it's not the graph that is modified but the container. Maybe better to have said somethinglike "Operations may specify a graph within the container to be updated..."? #g -- [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-sparql11-update-20130321/#graphStore [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-rdf-graph
Received on Monday, 10 July 2017 10:26:07 UTC