Re: Considering a PATCH model for LDP

hello ashok.

On 2013-03-09 15:34 , "Ashok Malhotra" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> wrote:
>We have PATCH for JSON
>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-09
>and PATCH for XML: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilde-xml-patch-04
>Wouldn't your proposal be better characterized as PATCH for RDF?
>So, we should have the RDF folks look at it.

well, there's two sides to this. i agree that patching RDF is a
fundamental RDF facility and outside of the scope of LDP's charter. but if
we do want to provide affordances for patching, then we have to add these
to LDP and specify in LDP that these affordances should be followed by
using a PATCH method. the concrete PATCH format then is a different media
type than LDP anyway (possibly advertised via Accept-Patch
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5789#section-3.1 ), and thus is one of the
affordances that link "out of" the LDP media type (instead of within it).

cheers,

dret.

Received on Monday, 11 March 2013 02:01:50 UTC