Re: composition and aggregation

hello henry.

On 2013-01-29 15:48 , "Henry Story" <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:
>PS. In the interest of fairness and openess I must disclose a
>potential conflict of interest here. Being an Apache member I
>have a potentially strong intellectual interest in PATCH being a
>strong member of the LDP protocol.

i think using PATCH is an excellent idea in may RESTful services. however,
usually it's useful to have generic media types for it that can be simply
reused, so that PATCHing resources can be done across a variety of
services by simply adding support for PATCH and the patch media type.

indications for this is the current very lively debate around JSON-Patch
(which likely will enter the IETF RFCification process soon), and my
recent (but so far not very lively) proposal for an XML Patch media type.

in summary: it would be excellent to have PATCH support, but then again,
defining patch media types typically is not trivial, and ideally should be
done in a reusable way. i am not sure LDP is chartered to work on an RDF
patch media type, but i absolutely agree that it would be great to have
one, pretty much for any RESTful protocol that's using RDF. is that
something that in an ideal world the RDF WG should be doing?

cheers,

dret.

Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2013 15:00:06 UTC