Re: the state of ldp-patch, and a procedural proposal

On 18/10/13 03:57, Alexandre Bertails wrote:

> General remark: Linked Data (in LDP) is different from general RDF:
> the data lives in "small" HTTP documents, not in "big" RDF store.

Hmm - collections have the potential to be large and, in general, 
planning on "small" seems to fail the test of real use!

If it were truly small, than PATCH is not really needed - use PUT and etags.

I do agree that "LDP PATCH" is not PATCH for all RDF situations.

>
> RDF Patch
> ---------
>
> Champion: Andy Seaborne
>
> Summary: diffs for RDF dataset
>
> Example: (A is for Add and D for Delete)
>
> [[
>   A <http://example.org/alice> <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name> "Robert" .
>   A <http://example.org/bob> <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/knows>
> <http://example/alice> .
>   A <http://example.org/alice> <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name> "Alice" .
>   D <http://example.org/bob> <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name> "Robert" .
>   A <http://example.org/bob> <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name> "Bob" .
> ]]
>
> Pros:
> * easy to implement from scratch (parser + runtime)
>
> Cons:
> * specified for an RDF dataset, not an LDPR

I don't follow that point - LDPR state is a graph and your example is 
changing a graph.   RDF patch as a format is equally applicable to a 
graph; don't use graph names.

 > * blank nodes are system dependant, so not well specified in the case 
of LDP

Skolemization?

As the RDF patch docs discusses, both doc-wide scope (RDF style) and 
store-scope are needed for different usages.

	Andy

Received on Friday, 18 October 2013 14:14:14 UTC