Re: ISSUE-100: Should ld-patch use a slash like sparql does, instead of as it currently does? from Andy Seaborne on 2014-08-18 (public-ldp-wg@w3.org from August 2014)

From: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 21:58:22 +0100
To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <53F268EE.8030503@apache.org>

On 18/08/14 21:13, Alexandre Bertails wrote:
> What do you want exactly to highlight in the draft? We are already
> saying the following:
>
> [[
> The LD Patch format described in this document should be seen as an
> "assembly language" for updating RDF Graphs. It is the intention to
> confine its expressive power to an RDF diff with minimal support for
> blank nodes and rdf:list manipulations. For more powerful operations
> on RDF Graphs and Quad Stores, the LDP WG recommends the reader to
> consider SPARQL Update.
> ]]

I think that it would be clearer if if said the patch was for Linked 
Data Platform Resources:

"performed against an RDF Graph"
==>
"performed against a Linked Data Platform Resource"

"for updating RDF Graphs"
==>
"for updating Linked Data Platform Resources"

 Andy

Received on Monday, 18 August 2014 20:58:51 UTC