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

On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 4:58 PM, Andy Seaborne <> wrote:
> 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:

That is exactly how LDP-RS is already defined in the specification [1]
so you can consider it as an alias.

> "performed against an RDF Graph"
> ==>
> "performed against a Linked Data Platform Resource"
> "for updating RDF Graphs"
> ==>
> "for updating Linked Data Platform Resources"

IMO, what's important is that it doesn't claim to do more than it
actually does. In practice, it really works against RDF graphs.



>         Andy

Received on Monday, 18 August 2014 21:07:41 UTC