- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 09:14:22 -0400
- To: Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org>, Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>
- CC: "public-ldp-patch@w3.org" <public-ldp-patch@w3.org>, Linked Data Platform WG <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
On 10/18/2013 02:54 PM, Alexandre Bertails wrote:
>
> I see emerging several trends:
>
> * 2 kind of syntaxes: SPARQL Update subset or RDF PATCH derivatives
>
I think there are three kinds of syntaxes: SPARQL Update subset, Dataset
syntaxes, and Custom Patch syntaxes.
> * skolemizing bnodes VS matching bnodes
>
Four options here: match blank nodes, skolemize blank nodes, namable
blank nodes (as in RDF Patch and GRUF), and dont-patch blank nodes.
> * expressive power, ie. how powerful and complex the BGP can be
>
Two separate issues here: power of the graph pattern for blank node
matching, and power of the update language for expressing changes (of
which list-update-operations is one kind).
> * 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.
Yes, coming out of the last F2F, my sense was the first choice was
between matching blank nodes and namable blank nodes, and I proposed we
do both through CR, assuming people were willing to do the work.
It's on today's agenda:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Sep/0041.html (and
of course it's the start of this thread, going back 5 weeks).
I'm slightly less enamored of the work load at the moment, as I find
myself spread very thin. If I had to pick a solution today, I'd say
subset-of-SPARQL-update, with node matching, and I'd try to figure out
some way to extend that with some list operations primitives that we'd
want in SPARQL 1.2 any way.
-- Sandro
Received on Monday, 21 October 2013 13:14:31 UTC