- From: John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 10:15:47 -0400
- To: Nandana Mihindukulasooriya <nmihindu@fi.upm.es>
- Cc: Linked Data Platform Working Group <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Received on Monday, 6 May 2013 14:16:24 UTC
> This issue of knowing which triples belong to which resource applies > to equally to all the four options, right ? Though we discuss it in The options are asserting markedly different things. All of them do assert (at the RDF level) that the response triples include all the triples one would get by retrieving the named members as well. None of them make any assertion about the correspondence between HTTP resources and triples returned. That is sufficient for the simplest container-client case (query). I think it wholly insufficient for any scenario involving later replacement (PUT) of the intervening resources, in the absence of assumptions about the relationship between triple subjects and HTTP resources (other thread). In other words, if you intend to replace the members later I do not see how you are going to avoid getting those members first. PATCH, being more incremental, might be less of an issue. Best Regards, John Voice US 845-435-9470 BluePages Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario
Received on Monday, 6 May 2013 14:16:24 UTC