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

On 18/08/14 22:07, Alexandre Bertails wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 4:58 PM, Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org> 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.

It is targetted at a subset of graphs as the itself text explains.  This 
document makes no reference to LDP except to say it is the product of 
the LDP-WG hence my suggestion to clarify the introduction text.

 Andy

>
> Alexandre
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/ldp/#dfn-linked-data-platform-rdf-source
>
>>
>>          Andy
>>
>>

Received on Monday, 18 August 2014 22:19:07 UTC