- From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 17:30:37 -0800
- To: Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetil@kjernsmo.net>
- Cc: "SPARQL Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
We didn't consider this particularly, but having the
WHERE part optional for a DELETE in that sense you propose
doesn't seem problematic to me, at first sight.
Other opinions?
Axel
On 4 Nov 2009, at 10:49, Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote:
> All,
>
> I'm sorry I couldn't be at the F2F, but I looked through the
> scrollback and
> found the following resolution:
>
> <sandro> RESOLVED: we'll have one update statement, DELETE ...
> INSERT
> ... WHERE ..., where one of DELETE or INSERT may be ommitted, and
> WHERE is
> optional, and multiple of these may be combined in a string using
> ";" as
> the separator.
>
> Lets see if I got this right, does this mean that my old verbose
> example:
>
> DELETE { <foo> dc:title ?o . }
> INSERT { <foo> dc:title "Foo" . }
> WHERE { <foo> dc:title ?o . }
>
> ...would become
> DELETE { <foo> dc:title ?o . }
> INSERT { <foo> dc:title "Foo" . }
> right?
>
> And if I just simply wanted to delete any dc:titles of the <foo>,
> it'll be
> simply
> DELETE { <foo> dc:title ?o . }
> ?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Kjetil
> --
> Kjetil Kjernsmo
> kjetil@kjernsmo.net
> http://www.kjetil.kjernsmo.net/
>
>
Received on Friday, 6 November 2009 01:31:21 UTC