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

Hi David,

On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 9:14 PM,  <> wrote:
> On 19.09.2014 22:02, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>> On Sep 19, 2014 11:03 PM, "David Booth" <> 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.

First of all, thanks for taking the time to review the document.

>>  >
>>  > 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. [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,

I happen to have written quite a long blog post answering all those
questions [4] and more. I had started to write it before your first
email, but you will find my answers to the remarks from your first

> 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].

To be clear, the group is still looking for feedback even if the LD
Patch approach is what satisfies most of the participants at this

>  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).

If I understand you well, you think that it is ok to change the
requirements as long as the solution is a subset of SPARQL Update. My
take is that we must first agree on the requirements in the context of
LDP, and only then see if there exists such a subset of SPARQL Update.



> I hope that clarifies.
> Thanks!
> David
>> Links:
>> ------
>> [1]
>> [2]
>> [3]

Received on Sunday, 21 September 2014 01:46:17 UTC