Re: Considering a PATCH model for LDP

hello steve.

i guess i am sounding like a broken record when it comes to media types,
but that's just because that's how things on the web are frequently
designed.

On 2013-03-09 6:35 , "Steve Speicher" <sspeiche@gmail.com> wrote:
>I have drafted something very simple that meets most of OSLC's simple
>use cases that I would like to use as a basis for discussion on a
>model for PATCH [1]. It separates the model from the document (format)
>used mostly.  It takes an approach that doesn't require SPARQL Update
>but shows how it can be used.  The patch document can be any quad
>format.
>Feedback welcome on this independent of usage within LDP as well.  I
>realize the proposal is incomplete and apologize for that -- I thought
>there was value in sharing what I have so far.  I'm currently working
>on some additional validation of this approach as well.
>[1] - http://open-services.net/wiki/core/OSLC-Core-Partial-Update/

PATCH is pretty clear about the fact that PATCHing is based on patch
documents, identified by media type. after all, PATCHing (even at the same
servics) could support different patch formats, and then these are
identified via HTTP's usual mechanisms and the additional Accept-Patch
header http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5789#section-3.1 .

i do like the idea of supporting PATCH, but from LDP's point of view, it's
actually very simple: like ashok said, actually defining a patch format is
outside of the scope of LDP. so when we support PATCH, we add an
affordance for that, and then HTTP PATCH takes over and client and server
can decide which PATCH media type is supported by both client and server.

if there was an existing PATCH media type for RDF, we could
recommend/require that it shold be supported by LDP, but afaict, no such
thing yet exists, so all we can do is provide the affordance, make it
optional, and then wait and see if such a thing is created, and becomes
widely supported. once that happens, we could add it to the "deployment
guide" and say that choosing format x as the PATCH format might be a good
idea.

cheers,

dret.

Received on Monday, 11 March 2013 02:08:46 UTC