Re: Considering a PATCH model for LDP

On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Ashok Malhotra
<ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> wrote:
> Hi Steve:
> 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.
> All the best, Ashok
>

Hi Ashok,

I would say it is PATCH for Linked Data, where we have LDP-Rs who have
their state represented using the RDF data model.  As the deliverable
in this WG is about "a platform based on RESTful read/write Linked
Data" [1], this seems to fit into that.  I could see if we need to
develop a complex patch document format that we should discuss the
best way to make that happen as it may be too much for our WG as-is.

[1] - http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/charter#deliverables

Thanks,
Steve

> 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] - http://open-services.net/wiki/core/OSLC-Core-Partial-Update/
>>
>> --
>> - Steve Speicher
>>
>
>

Received on Monday, 11 March 2013 12:53:43 UTC