Re: the state of ldp-patch, and a procedural proposal

On 10/18/2013 10:05 AM, Alexandre Bertails wrote:
> On 10/18/2013 08:13 AM, Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote:
>> Alexandre, all,
>>
>> first thanks for this nice review.
>>
>> It seems that my own proposal [1] has gone completely unnoticed.
>> I'm not taking this personnally, but I would like to hear the feedback
>> of the group on this idea, especially the handling of RDF lists, which I
>> think are not covered by any of the proposals mentionned by Alexandre.
>>
>
> Effectively, nothing personal, but my apologies for missing yours. I've
> created a wiki page with my summary and have already added yours [2].

Note that I've just added TimBL's definition for a nailed graph. It's at
http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/LDP_PATCH_Proposals#Definition_of_a_nailed_graph_.28TimBL.29

Alexandre.

>
> Generally, I like this approach. I do like the handling of rdf:list
> (despite what the SPARQL crowd says, rdf:list are awesome!) but I
> still need to think more about it. It is not a subset of SPARQL Update
> but having property paths is already a good way to access some bnodes
> without referring to them. I would prefer to avoid relying on
> skolemization. The B (Bind) idea looks simple. I believe this can
> easily be combined with the simple BGP + nailed nodes approach.
>
> I see emerging several trends:
>
> * 2 kind of syntaxes: SPARQL Update subset or RDF PATCH derivatives
>
> * skolemizing bnodes VS matching bnodes
>
> * expressive power, ie. how powerful and complex the BGP can be
>
> * support of specific features, eg. rdf:list
>
> Maybe we can have polls to make progress? I believe that the very
> first question to answer is about skolemization.
>
> Alexandre.
>
> [2]
> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/LDP_PATCH_Proposals#Pierre-Antoine_Champin.27s_RDF-PATCH
>
>
>
>
>>    pa
>>
>> [1]
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-patch/2013Sep/0022.html
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org
>> <mailto:bertails@w3.org>> wrote:
>>
>>     Hi guys,
>>
>>     I've been playing with different approaches around LDP PATCH. I
>> wanted
>>     to provide some feedback, both from the user's perspective and from
>>     the implementer's perspective.
>>
>>     As a user, I'm among the people interested in implementing a
>>     Decentralized Social Web using a vanilla/generic LDP server, with
>>     WebID and WebACL. I've mainly focused my own experiments with being
>>     able to patch WebID profiles. So far in the read-write-web server,
>>     we've been using full SPARQL but we are interested in a lighter PATCH
>>     format which would not rely on external libraries.
>>
>>     On 09/14/2013 09:40 PM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>>      > There have been some good emails on public-ldp-patch, and there
>>     was some
>>      > good discussion at F2F4.   Here's where I think we are.   I don't
>>     know
>>      > of anything in this email that anyone would disagree with (that
>>     is, I'm
>>      > trying to summarize consensus), and I end with a suggested path
>>     forward.
>>      >
>>      > I think the biggest challenge we face -- and the challenge that
>>     divided
>>      > me and Eric at the meeting -- is how to patch triples that
>>     involve blank
>>      > nodes.   There seem to be two approaches:
>>      >
>>      > 1.  Require the client to create a graph pattern (a "where
>> clause")
>>      > which unambiguously identifies the blank nodes involved in the
>>     triples
>>      > to be updated, and require the server to use that graph pattern
>>     to find
>>      > those blank nodes in the graph being patched.
>>      >
>>      > 2.  Require that during the conversation that ends up involving
>>      > patching, both parties use the same mapping from blank node
>> labels to
>>      > blank nodes.
>>      >
>>      > Option 1 is a good fit for SPARQL.   SPARQL servers naturally
>> do that
>>      > graph matching.  In contract, standard SPARQL servers don't have
>>     any way
>>      > to share blank node scope as required for option 2. That kind of
>>      > exposure of blank node labels has traditionally been avoided in
>> the
>>      > design of RDF systems.
>>
>>     General remark: Linked Data (in LDP) is different from general RDF:
>>     the data lives in "small" HTTP documents, not in "big" RDF store. I
>>     believe that the problem that SPARQL Update addresses is quite
>>     different from what we want to achieve with LDP PATCH. Because of
>>     that, I was against considering a subset of SPARQL Update at first,
>>     but Eric and my experiments made me change my mind.
>>
>>      >
>>      > However, the worst-case performance with option 1 is exponential.
>>     If a
>>      > triple to be updated is in the middle of a large cloud of blank
>>     nodes,
>>      > then matching the where-clause might not be possible before we
>>     all die
>>      > of old age.  (It's an extremely well studied problem in computer
>>      > science; I'm not an expert, but I think I'm reading the results
>>     correctly.)
>>
>>     Following Eric's lead, I've actually started with the BGP approach:
>>     DELETE + INSERT + WHERE-with-simple-BGP. To address the complexity
>>     issue, I think we can always add some restriction on the BGP. In
>>     practice, it depends on the expressive power the people are expecting
>>     for a PATCH.
>>
>>      >
>>      > No one has offered data about how often this worst-case behavior
>>     might
>>      > be a problem in practice.  Arguably we're still in the early
>> days, so
>>      > it's too soon to know how painful this restriction might turn out
>>     to be.
>>      >
>>      > Some people said that the server can just set a time limit and
>> reject
>>      > patches that end up taking too long.   Other people (me)
>> replied that
>>      > makes the overall system too unpredictable, that systems should
>>     be able
>>      > to send patches with confidence, especially one server to
>>     another.  As I
>>      > said at the meeting, I don't know if this worst-case
>> performance will
>>      > turn out to be a problem, but I'm concerned enough about it that
>>     I can't
>>      > +1 option 1, and don't want my name on a spec based on it.  David
>>      > reported at the meeting that Google's internal culture generally
>>     forbids
>>      > using exponential algorithms, so we might expect if they were
>> in the
>>      > group they would formally object to option 1 (or just decide to
>> never
>>      > use it, which amounts to the same thing).  Our anecdotal
>> reports that
>>      > they don't use SPARQL support this hearsay, but as long is it
>> remains
>>      > hearsay, we probably shouldn't take it too seriously.
>>      >
>>      > Which brings me to the proposal.
>>      >
>>      > Let's move forward with both Option 1 *and* Option 2, marking
>>     them both
>>      > "at risk" in the spec.   That gives us the whole Last Call and
>>     Candidate
>>      > Recommendation periods to gather input on how bad the exponential
>>      > performance issue is for Option 1 and how bad the implementation
>>      > challenge is for Option 2 (how hard it is to get RDF systems to
>> share
>>      > scope in blank node labels).
>>      >
>>      > Then at the end of CR, we can decide if either of them is good
>>     enough to
>>      > normatively reference as the basic LDP patch format.   If they
>>     both end
>>      > up implemented and with people liking them, then we just pick
>> one, so
>>      > the folks don't have to implement both going forward.    If
>>     neither of
>>      > them is implemented and liked, then we're back to where we are
>> today,
>>      > with no standard patch format for LDP, but some more data on why
>>     it's hard.
>>      >
>>      > How's that sound?
>>      >
>>      > I imagine Option 1 would end up as some subset of SPARQL
>> Update, like
>>      > TurtlePatch  [1] plus variables or like Eric presented at the
>>     meeting. I
>>      > imagine for Option 2 we'd have something like Andy and Rob's
>> RDFPatch
>>      > [2] or my old GRUF [3] (which I'd forgotten about until reading
>>     RDFPatch).
>>
>>     Here is my reviews on [1] and [2] and some other proposals. Take into
>>     account that I didn't participate in the conversations on LDP PATCH
>>     and that there is to knowledge no page gathering all the proposals.
>>
>>     TurtlePatch
>>     -----------
>>
>>     Champion: Sandro
>>
>>     Summary: subset of SPARQL Update with INSERT and DELETE clauses.
>>
>>     Example:
>>
>>     [[
>>        PREFIX foaf <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/>
>>        PREFIX s <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#>
>>        DELETE DATA {
>>          <http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/card#i> foaf:mbox
>>     <mailto:timbl@w3.org <mailto:timbl@w3.org>>
>>        }
>>        INSERT DATA {
>>          <http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/card#i> foaf:mbox
>>     <mailto:timbl@hushmail.com <mailto:timbl@hushmail.com>>
>>          <http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/card> s:comment "This
>> is my
>>     general description of myself.\n\nI try to keep data here up to
>> date and
>>     it should be considered authoritative."
>>        }
>>     ]]
>>
>>     Pros:
>>     * can be implemented using full SPARQL implementation
>>     * easy to implement from scratch (parser + runtime)
>>
>>     Cons:
>>     * no support for bnodes
>>
>>     Status:
>>     * I implemented this approach in Banana-RDF
>>
>>     Remark: Sandro talked about "TurtlePatch plus variables" but I'm not
>>     sure what that means exactly by reading his spec. Until I see a
>>     solution properly considering bnodes, it will be a -1 for me.
>>
>>     RDF Patch
>>     ---------
>>
>>     Champion: Andy Seaborne
>>
>>     Summary: diffs for RDF dataset
>>
>>     Example: (A is for Add and D for Delete)
>>
>>     [[
>>        A <http://example.org/alice> <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name>
>>     "Robert" .
>>        A <http://example.org/bob> <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/knows>
>>     <http://example/alice> .
>>        A <http://example.org/alice> <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name>
>>     "Alice" .
>>        D <http://example.org/bob> <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name>
>>     "Robert" .
>>        A <http://example.org/bob> <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name>
>> "Bob" .
>>     ]]
>>
>>     Pros:
>>     * easy to implement from scratch (parser + runtime)
>>
>>     Cons:
>>     * specified for an RDF dataset, not an LDPR
>>     * blank nodes are system dependant, so not well specified in the case
>>         of LDP
>>
>>     Remark: actually pretty much the same than TurtlePatch, but it feels
>>     like it was written for a different use-case. I don't understand how
>>     LDP is supposed to communicate stable bnodes label for that solution
>>     to work. So -1 again for me.
>>
>>     EricP's proposal (sorry, don't have a better name)
>>     ----------------
>>
>>     Champion: EricP
>>
>>     Summary: SPARQL subset with DELETE, INSERT and WHERE clause. The
>> WHERE
>>     clause is restricted to a simple BGP with no var-predicates.
>>
>>     Example:
>>     [[
>>     PREFIX foaf: <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/>
>>     DELETE { ?s foaf:name "Alex" }
>>     INSERT { ?s foaf:name "Alexandre" }
>>     WHERE { ?s foaf:name "Alex" }
>>     ]]
>>
>>     Pros:
>>     * can be implemented using full SPARQL implementation
>>     * in practice, still easy enough to implement from scratch (parser +
>>     runtime)
>>     * can be used to reach some bnodes
>>
>>     Cons:
>>     * some queries can be NP-complete (would be good to document one
>>         example)
>>
>>     Status:
>>     * I implemented this approach in Banana-RDF
>>
>>     Remark: one could argue that in practice, LDPRs are not supposed
>> to be
>>     crazy big, and that most queries won't end up with the worst-case
>>     complexity. But I do share the concerns. So it's a +1 for me if the
>>     group wants to go with it, with some reservations about the
>>     complexity.
>>
>>     EricP's proposal + pinned nodes
>>     -------------------------------
>>
>>     Champion: TimBL
>>
>>     *note: TimBL used another term that "pinned node" but I cannot
>>        remember it right now :-/ Please someone (Tim?) help me.
>>
>>     Summary: same as previous one, but the BGP returns a single matching
>>     node. Some additional constraints are put on the query. TimBL wrote
>>     the algorithm on the whiteboard for me and it made sense.
>>
>>     Pros:
>>     * can be implemented using full SPARQL implementation
>>     * in practice, still easy enough to implement from scratch (parser +
>>     runtime)
>>     * can be used to reach some bnodes
>>     * expected not to be NP-complete
>>
>>     Cons:
>>     * we further restrain the number of bnodes that can be
>>         matched. Shouldn't be an issue in practice.
>>
>>     Status:
>>     * I implemented a similar restriction in Banana-RDF when the BGP is a
>>         tree pattern.
>>     * TimBL told me that Tabulator already implements that approach.
>>
>>     Remark: it's a refinement of EricP's proposal. The specifics still
>>     have to be worked on but I like the general idea about constraining
>>     the BGP. Another +1 for me, but I obviously prefer this one on
>>     EricP's.
>>
>>     Joe Presbrey's PATCH
>>     --------------------
>>
>>     Champion: Joe Presbrey
>>
>>     Summary: format is Turtle. For each triple { s p o }, { s p ANY } is
>>     deleted and { s p o } is added. His implementation forbids the use of
>>     blank nodes.
>>
>>     Pros:
>>     * super easy
>>
>>     Cons:
>>     * can't have { s p o1; o2 } anymore
>>     * no bnodes
>>
>>     Status:
>>     * Joe implemented this approach in one of his projects (I guess
>> either
>>     data.fm <http://data.fm> or ldpy)
>>
>>     Remarks: it's too destructive and doesn't handle bnodes, so -1.
>>
>>
>>
>>     In summary, it looks like people are ok to consider a subset of
>>     SPARQL. Also, I believe that we cannot ignore the bnodes out there
>> and
>>     LDP PATCH must provide an acceptable solution for them. I personally
>>     found EricP's proposal easy to implement, so that's a clear
>>     candidate. Like others, I'm sensitive to the complexity issue and I
>>     believe that some additional constraint on the BGP should avoid the
>>     pitfall, so I'm interested in TimBL's idea from Tabulator.
>>
>>     At that point, I believe that the most compelling proposal is EricP's
>>     with TimBL's constraint. If the group shows interest, I'd be
>>     interested in writing a first draft of the spec.
>>
>>     What do you guys think?
>>
>>     Alexandre.
>>
>>      >
>>      >      -- Sandro
>>      >
>>      > [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/TurtlePatch
>>      > [2] http://afs.github.io/rdf-patch
>>      > [3] http://websub.org/wiki/GRUF (from Apr 2010)
>>      >
>>      >
>>      >
>>      >
>>
>>
>>
>

Received on Friday, 18 October 2013 18:54:44 UTC