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: Sat, 23 Aug 2014 18:42:55 +0100
Message-ID: <53F8D29F.3020203@apache.org>
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

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