Re: Considering a PATCH model for LDP

On 10 Mar 2013, at 20:55, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com> wrote:

> 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 { ... }

I like this: +1.



> 
> 	Andy
> 
> 
> On 09/03/13 23:34, Ashok Malhotra 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
>> 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
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/