- From: Alexandre Passant <alexandre.passant@deri.org>
- Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 23:24:24 +0100
- To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Cc: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 30 Sep 2010, at 08:04, Steve Harris wrote: > On 2010-09-29, at 18:55, Lee Feigenbaum wrote: > >> On 9/29/2010 1:42 PM, Alexandre Passant wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I'm checking current issues in the Update doc, and see that ISSUE-37 is closed. >>> >>> RESOLVED: close ISSUE-37 by adding a note to Update mentioning possible feedback effects >>> + >>> ACTION: paul to add a note on possible feedback effects of federated queries in update (ACTION-289) >>> >>> Do Paul or anyone remind what we meant by "feedback effects" here ? >>> Seems to relate to atomicity ? >> >> The use case in question involved using SERVICE in the WHERE clause of an update operation, I believe. > > That's correct. Different levels of atomicity could lead different stores to return different results. Here's what I added Initial text: Each request <strong>should</strong> be treated atomically by a SPARQL 1.1 Update service. Any resulting concurrency issues will be a matter for each implementation to consider according to its own architecture. Added: However, using SERVICE in the WHERE clause of an Update request may lead to unexpected results in terms of atomicity, leading to different stores to return different results.</p> Alex. > > - 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 > -- Dr. Alexandre Passant Digital Enterprise Research Institute National University of Ireland, Galway :me owl:sameAs <http://apassant.net/alex> .
Received on Thursday, 30 September 2010 22:24:57 UTC