Re: Where do we currently stand with our position on PATCH?

Hi Cody,

You haven't missed anything. The problem is that although everybody wants 
to have PATCH nobody seemed to have the cycles to dedicate to solving the 
problem of the format. Because we can't afford to put the LDP spec on hold 
until this is solved, we have decided to leave the format undefined in the 
spec for now, and make PATCH optional.

A separate mailing list (public-ldp-patch@w3.org) was set up as a forum to 
discuss the PATCH format issue but there hasn't been much activity.

Once a patch format is agreed upon we will be able to make PATCH a 
mandatory feature of LDP.

Regards.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group




From:   Cody Burleson <cody.burleson@base22.com>
To:     Linked Data Platform WG <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>, 
Date:   01/09/2014 02:56 PM
Subject:        Where do we currently stand with our position on PATCH?



Team,

Putting forth first that I may have missed something or even a lot about 
the subject of PATCH, I feel like it's still a lingering issue that we 
haven't made enough progress on. Did I miss something?

What I can see is that we have is a set of proposals/options, which are 
documented here:

http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/LDP_PATCH_Proposals

... and from what I understand, we were then supposed to put in a vote 
from amongst these options - else propose something else.

Amongst the options, I favor Turtle Patch.

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/TurtlePatch

Even though it does not support blank nodes, they could be handled with 
skolemization, as the proposal suggests. I'm open to having my mind 
changed, but in the context of Linked Data for the WWW, I don't think we 
need to be even indirectly advocating the use of bnodes.

I do not see any open issue regarding PATCH format. Did we somehow already 
close the loop on this?

If not, I think we need an issue.



-- 
Cody Burleson