- From: Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 10:24:23 -0400
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>, public-ldp-patch@w3.org
On 10/18/2013 10:13 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote: > 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! Collections as in LDPC, yes, that is true. I was talking about LDPRs. > > If it were truly small, than PATCH is not really needed - use PUT and > etags. I'd be happy to add this approach in [2]. Is there some text somewhere about how exactly one can use ETags for LDP PATCH? [2] http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/LDP_PATCH_Proposals > > 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. I don't know the history for RDF PATCH. I had the feeling that the spec was written with RDF Stores in mind, not for PATCHing LDPRs. The named graphs thing was just an example of that. I'm not saying this cannot be refined, like Pierre-Antoine did for example. > > > * blank nodes are system dependant, so not well specified in the case > of LDP > > Skolemization? Sure. But the specification in its current form says [[ Blank nodes are recorded as _:id where id can be the system-internal identifier for the blank node ]], but says nothing about skolemization, does it? > > As the RDF patch docs discusses, both doc-wide scope (RDF style) and > store-scope are needed for different usages. I understand. So here is my question: what scope does RDF PATCH address? Alexandre. > > Andy > > > >
Received on Friday, 18 October 2013 14:24:24 UTC