W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp-comments@w3.org > September 2014

Comments on Linked Data Patch Format FWPD

From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 10:17:21 +0100
Cc: Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org>, team-ldp-chairs@w3.org, alexandre@bertails.org, pchampin@liris.cnrs.fr, asambra@mit.edu, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, public-ldp-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E7F5A81E-B8B7-46A9-B339-93E62F072717@w3.org>
To: Arnaud Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
Arnaud et al

Here some immediate technical comments on
http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-ldpatch-20140918/

1) " then the server must not apply any of the changes."  What HTTP error code is then returned?  You must spec the little network protocol bits here I think. Or is that in LDP already?

2) - Why do some production names are in bold in the concrete syntax and some not?

3) Step ::= '/' ( '^' iri | iri | INDEX )         eh?    Do you mean  Step ::=   (  '/'  '^'?    iri )   iri   |   INDEX 
 
4) "The Bind operation is used to create a new variable by binding or assigning an RDF Term to the variable."
Do you mean one or many?   Happy with either, both have their uses. I thought I saw many allowed somewhere in the document.
Probably veer toward many, for consistency with SPARQL.  You have a unicity operator for 

5)  Add s  p o  vs.   insert { ... }   I  prefer the latter I must say
 --- why be arbitrarily different from SPARQL, turtle, etc?
 --- I already have a { stuff } parser as do many people 
--- it is a pain to have to write a separate line for each 
-- I'd like to use [] for bnodes in the insert bit.


6)  The '!' constraint: with the uniqueness constraint,  if the test fails, is that an error and the whole thing is aborted, or that brach of the query is silently abandoned? "Is it select all those people with one home." or "select all people. Assert a person only has one home".   Or is it "Just pick any one and proceed".

7) Maybe :: or some thing as a index operator, not just a space.   The conventional [] are overused already, of course.

My 2 worth anyway

Tim

Developer hat on
Director hat off





Received on Friday, 26 September 2014 09:17:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:44:38 UTC