W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2011

Re: question on PATCH (SPARQL 1.1 protocol and SPARQL 1.1 RDF Dataset HTTP Protocol )

From: Chimezie Ogbuji <chimezie@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 12:24:55 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=2gCHRhmA2U6caW0ZOfpATs2Eb=OWtbGHpTUGB@mail.gmail.com>
To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Hello Axel.

On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
> I think the PATCH section in the current SPARQL 1.1 RDF Dataset HTTP Protocol doc [1] looks a bit alien.
> It seems to just say that PATCH can be used for UPDATE requests, which has nothing directly to do with the Dataset protocol, it seems.

There was a previous thread that resulted in the current language.  In
addition, we had several discussions in one or more teleconferences on
this topic.

See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010OctDec/0458.html

That (informative) part of the document is saying PATCH can be used
for a restricted form of UPDATE requests that are RESTful (i.e., the
requested UPDATE message only manipulates the graph content being
addressed via PATCH, for instance) and recommends appropriate HTTP
behavior and error conditions in that scenario.  This does have to do
with the Dataset protocol since it is due to the fact that it is a
RESTful protocol that has constraints on the interface that the
restrictions and guidelines are given in that section.

> That indicates probably, that this rather belongs to our "regular" protocol document?

I don't think so.  The regular protocol document does not have to
adhere to any (RESTful) constraints that the dataset protocol does,
which is why we have the latter in the first place.

> It's probably just not yet in the 1.1 protocol document because no one has been working on the 1.1 protocol document for a while,
> but I think the whole Informative section on PATCH in could be dropped in the HTTP Dataset protocol doc or just be shortened to a reference to the Protocol Doc.

> Opinions?

I disagree for the reasons given above, there has already been comment
threads on the topic and some indication for the desire to support a
RESTful mechanism for using the UPDATE language, the current text is
informative, and there is currently nothing equivalent to reference in
replacing it.

-- Chime
Received on Wednesday, 9 March 2011 17:25:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:03 UTC