Re: Considering a PATCH model for LDP

The use of global names for the actions on the graphs can be avoided by 
including a manifest in the default graph (the way the global names are 
uses is really predicate-like).

{ <> ldp:insert :g1 ;
      ldp:delete :g2 }

:g1 { ... }

:g2 { ... }


On 09/03/13 23:34, Ashok Malhotra wrote:
> Hi Steve:
> We have PATCH for JSON
> and PATCH for XML:
> Wouldn't your proposal be better characterized as PATCH for RDF?
> So, we should have the RDF folks look at it.
> All the best, Ashok
> On 3/9/2013 9:35 AM, Steve Speicher wrote:
>> We have a number of issues related to PATCH'ing resources:
>> ISSUE-12 (closed) Can HTTP PATCH be used for resource creation?
>> ISSUE-17 changesets as a recommended PATCH format
>> ISSUE-27 Should the PATCH method be used, as opposed to POST with a
>> given mime type?
>> I have drafted something very simple that meets most of OSLC's simple
>> use cases that I would like to use as a basis for discussion on a
>> model for PATCH [1]. It separates the model from the document (format)
>> used mostly.  It takes an approach that doesn't require SPARQL Update
>> but shows how it can be used.  The patch document can be any quad
>> format.
>> Feedback welcome on this independent of usage within LDP as well.  I
>> realize the proposal is incomplete and apologize for that -- I thought
>> there was value in sharing what I have so far.  I'm currently working
>> on some additional validation of this approach as well.
>> [1] -
>> --
>> - Steve Speicher

Received on Sunday, 10 March 2013 19:55:47 UTC