Re: ISSUE-100: Should ld-patch use a slash like sparql does, instead of as it currently does?

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"


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