- From: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
- Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2014 18:42:55 +0100
- To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
On 20/08/14 15:01, Alexandre Bertails wrote: > On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 3:57 AM, Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org> wrote: >> 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" > > Oh, I now see what you meant and you are totally right. That's a great > characterization of LD Patch. > > I have made some editorial changes in the text [1]. Do you think they > capture well what you said? That's better at putting it in context. (it does not resolve issue-100 - we have drifted from that). Andy > > Alexandre > > [1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/rev/66030a2d0f9f > >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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 Saturday, 23 August 2014 17:43:24 UTC