W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp-wg@w3.org > August 2014

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

From: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 08:57:37 +0100
Message-ID: <53F454F1.3090900@apache.org>
To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
On 19/08/14 02:30, Alexandre Bertails wrote:
> Andy,
>
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 6:18 PM, Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Do you refer to the pathological graphs [2]? In any case, I agree that
> "with minimal support for blank nodes" should point to [2] to make the
> restriction clear. Otherwise, the input is an RDF Graph as defined at
> [3].
 >
> [2] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/ldpatch/ldpatch.html#pathological-graph
> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-rdf-graph
>
>> 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.
>
> LDP just defers the HTTP PATCH to something else. That PATCH format
> doesn't have to be tied to LDP itself. LD Patch has no technical
> dependency on LDP.


LD Patch is resource-centric, which is no bad thing, and it is helpful 
to explain that in the introduction

"for updating resources"
"for updating linked data resources"

This working group's remit is to produce an Linked Data Platform and LD 
Patch comes out of that remit.

	Andy

>
> Alexandre
>
>>
>>          Andy
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Alexandre
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/ldp/#dfn-linked-data-platform-rdf-source
>>>
>>>>
>>>>           Andy
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
Received on Wednesday, 20 August 2014 07:58:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:58 UTC