Re: [protocol] Patch formats

> On 05 Jun 2015, at 20:51 , Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> In reading back through the discussion at the face to face about the protocol draft, it was noted that there are many possible patch formats, including LDPatch, JSON Patch, Sparql Update, diff and so on.  All would be possible to use, and some easier in different circumstances.
> 
> Do we want to:
> 
> a)  Specify one as a requirement (MUST) and let the others be usable (MAY)
> b)  Not specify any as a requirement and just remain silent on which one to use.
> 
> If B is the preference, then we would need to decide how the server advertises which of the PATCH formats it implements so that clients can determine how (if at all) they can interact.
> 
> My preference is A, and to pick LDPatch (by reference) as part of the LDP stable of specifications, but what do people think?

My preference is also A, although the issue of advertising may still be relevant. ('may'. We may decide not to address this issue.)


> Benjamin suggested at the F2F a preference for JSON Patch, for example.


I do not have a strong feeling on whether it is json patch or ldpatch, not really familiar with the details and certainly no experience. I. I have a slight preference to JSON, however; as far as I can see, LDPatch is based on a turtle syntax, and we did make a decision to put JSON-LD forward as our primary syntax in the model (in view of our constituency). In this respect JSON patch seems to be more in line with the rest.

(Maybe there is an Abis possibility: require JSON and LDPatch? Or is that too much?)

Ivan

> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Rob
> 
> --
> Rob Sanderson
> Information Standards Advocate
> Digital Library Systems and Services
> Stanford, CA 94305


----
Ivan Herman, W3C
Digital Publishing Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704