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: <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 21:14:12 -0400
To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Cc: semantic-web <semantic-web@w3.org>, public-ldp <public-ldp@w3.org>, public-ldp-comments@w3.org, ericw3c@gmail.com
Message-ID: <b380f307d20227cab47134eb8b647173@dbooth.org>
On 19.09.2014 22:02, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> On Sep 19, 2014 11:03 PM, "David Booth" <david@dbooth.org> wrote:
>  . . .  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 [2]
> 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?

There are two issues: (a) whether LDP Patch invents a new language 
versus using a subset of SPARQL 1.1 Update; and (b) what choice of 
capabilities it should support.  My comment was addressing only the 
first of these two issues: I think it would be significantly 
advantageous to use a subset of SPARQL 1.1 Update rather than inventing 
a new language.

I did not look closely at the differences in capabilities supported by 
SparqlPatch [2] versus the current draft of LD Patch [1], so I do not 
know exactly how their capabilities compare, but my assumption is that 
they are different and the working group as a whole thought that the 
capabilities reflected in LD Patch [1] would be a better set to 
standardize than those in SparqlPatch [2].  For this reason my intent 
was only to push for using *some* SPARQL 1.1 Update subset, but let the 
working group decide what subset of capabilities that should be.  My 
assumption was that the working group would choose a subset similar to 
what is currently defined in LD Patch [1] (but using a subset of SPARQL 
1.1 Update instead of inventing a new language).

I hope that clarifies.


> Links:
> ------
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-ldpatch-20140918/
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/SparqlPatch
> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-ldpatch-20140918/
Received on Sunday, 21 September 2014 01:20:24 UTC

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