Re: SPARQL Profile for PATCH [was Re: LDP Patch Format FPWD published]

On Sep 19, 2014 11:03 PM, "David Booth" <> wrote:
> On 09/18/2014 06:30 PM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> I'm pleased to announce that the LDP WG just published the Linked Data
>> Patch Format First Public Working Draft:
>> _
>> I want to stress that the WG is seeking feedback from the community at
>> large on the direction being proposed.
> Thank you for the work that has gone into this!  I am very glad to see
progress toward supporting an RDF PATCH operation, and I am glad to see the
thinking that has gone into ensuring simplicity.  However, I also have
concerns about inventing a new syntax.
> Overall, I think progress would be better served if, instead of inventing
a new syntax, a simple restricted set of operations were defined as a
*profile* of SPARQL 1.1 Update operations.  I think this would provide
important benefits over inventing a new syntax:

The front matter of the LDP Patch document included links to some
alternative proposals. seems the
closest to what you propose. Can you say whether it or one of the other
proposals is closest to what you had in mind?

>  - Users would not have to learn yet another syntax that is confusingly
similar to SPARQL.   Using a single language decreases development and
maintenance costs.
>  - Implementers could simply plug in an existing general-purpose SPARQL
engine to get a new system up and running quickly.  Later if they decide
that it is worth the development cost to optimize performance, they could
replace the general-purpose SPARQL engine with special-purpose engine that
is stripped down and optimized for this profile.
>  - Implementers would have the option of supporting additional SPARQL 1.1
Update operations, beyond what the profile requires, in a consistent 100%
compatible way.
> I suggest that the LDP working group define an RDF PATCH operation as a
*profile* of SPARQL 1.1 Update, restricted to a set of operations similar
to those defined in the current Linked Data Patch Format draft:
> Thanks,
> David

Received on Saturday, 20 September 2014 02:02:32 UTC