Re: SPARQL subset as a PATCH format for LDP

> Another problem is the support for rdf:list. I have just finished
> writing down the semantics for UpdateList and based on that
> experience, I know this is something I want to rely on as a user,
> because it is so easy to get it wrong, so I want native support for
> it. And I don't think it is possible to do something equivalent in
> SPARQL Update. That is a huge drawback as list manipulation (eg. in
> JSON-LD, or Turtle) is an everyday task.

Is semantics for UpdateList  (that you wrote down) somewhere that WG 
members can look at it, and satisfy themselves that they agree with your 
conclusion?
I'm not steeped enough in the intracacies of SPARQL Update to have a horse 
in this race, but if this issue is the big-animal difference then people 
with the necessary understanding are going to want to see the details. The 
IBM products I'm aware of eschew rdf:List (and blank nodes generally, to 
first order), so I don't know how much this one alone would sway me.

It sounds like the other big-animal difference in your email is 
> we would have to refine the SPARQL semantics so that the order of the
> clauses matters (ie. no need to depend on a query optimiser). And we

That sounds like a more general problem.  It might mean, in effect, that 
no one would be able to use existing off-the-shelf componentry (specs & 
code ... is that the implication, Those Who Know S-U?) and that might well 
be a solid answer to "why not [use S-U]?"

Were there any other big-animal issues you found, those two aside?

Best Regards, John

Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages
Cloud and Smarter Infrastructure OSLC Lead