Re: Conditional INSERT statements

[Rob Walpole]

Hi Andy,

Thanks for your reply...


On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 11:26 PM, Andy Seaborne <a...@apache.org> wrote:

> Immediate comments:
>
> 1/
>
>
>
> DELETE {
>   ?transfer 
> <http://nationalarchives.gov.**uk/terms/dri#transferAsset<http://nationalarchives.gov.uk/terms/dri#transferAsset>
> >
> ?transferAsset .
> }
> INSERT {
>   ?transfer 
> <http://nationalarchives.gov.**uk/terms/dri#transferAsset<http://nationalarchives.gov.uk/terms/dri#transferAsset>>
> _:b0 .
>   various triples with _:b0 as subject
>
>
> so the DELETE leaves the structure from the bNode in place even if
> unlinked?
>
>
Ah, so are you saying we need to do something like:

DELETE
{
    ?transfer dri:transferAsset ?transferAsset .
    ?transferAsset ?property ?value .
}
INSERT
{
    ....new transferAsset...
}
WHERE
{
    ?transfer dcterms:identifier "201305241200"^^xsd:string .
    ?subject dcterms:identifier"dff82497-f161-4afd-8e38-**f31a8
b475b43"^^xsd:string
    OPTIONAL {
        ?transfer dri:transferAsset ?transferAsset .
        ?transferAsset dcterms:subject ?subject
        ?transferAsset dcterms:modified ?transferAssetModified ;
            ?property ?value .
        FILTER (?transferAssetModified
"2013-06-13T11:58:23.468Z"^^xsd:dateTime)
    }
}

Otherwise the bNode gets orphaned? I can see this may be wrong but I'm not
sure this would cause our problem which I believe is to do with the INSERT
not being conditional on the filter statement.


> 2/ In the data: I see:
>
> .../transferAssetStatus#SENT
>
> but
>
> .../transferStatus#COMPLETED
>
> Whta's
>
> dri:transferAsset
>                     [ dri:transferAssetStatus ..
> vs
>
> dri:transferStatus
>
>
Yes, I've probably given you too much information there. The transfer item
also has status (as well as it's transferAssets) but this is unrelated the
the problem.

Thanks
Rob

>