W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp-comments@w3.org > September 2014

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

From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 22:02:03 -0400
Message-ID: <CANfjZH3YDHPi2Nters-CfX3-RDxiUpDe0QAhFN4Gef9+7rTpdQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Cc: semantic-web <semantic-web@w3.org>, public-ldp <public-ldp@w3.org>, public-ldp-comments@w3.org
On Sep 19, 2014 11:03 PM, "David Booth" <david@dbooth.org> 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:
>> _http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-ldpatch-20140918/_
>> 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. http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/SparqlPatch 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:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-ldpatch-20140918/
> Thanks,
> David
Received on Saturday, 20 September 2014 02:02:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:16:45 UTC