Re: LD Patch review

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Steve Speicher <> wrote:
> Hey Alexandre,
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Alexandre Bertails
> <> wrote:
>> Hi Steve,
>> Pierre-Antoine, Andrei, and I talked this morning about your comments.
>> Andrei is now addressing them in the specification.
>> As for playing with LD Patch itself, I have that ready [1] for a
>> release. It will probably happen on Friday. I will provide you with
>> informations re: Maven configuration.
>> It's only building for Jena for now, but I can do Sesame if you prefer.
> Jena should be fine.
> I have also applied (thanks to your offline help) an update to some
> samples I had done for OSLC [1] using the LD Patch format.  Looks as
> if would meet our cases.  Will investigate a bit more some possible
> improvements.

One possible improvement would be to relax the path expressions to
make matching on bnodes easier.

The example that triggered that idea is at [2]. We should be able to
write something like that instead:

Bind ?label [/rdf:subject =
<>][/rdf:predicate =
oslc_cm:relatedChangeRequest][/rdf:object =
<http://myserver/mycmapp/bugs/1235>] .



> - Steve
> [1]:
>> Alexandre
>> [1]
>> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 4:46 PM, Steve Speicher <> wrote:
>>> Really glad to see we are progressing on patch.
>>> Here are some comments on:
>>> I have split my comments into 2 major categories: first the more
>>> substantial comments and second of the typo variety.  I plan to walk
>>> through a few of my data model in a bit more detail.  Any working
>>> software that you have that I could experiment with would be helpful
>>> as well (my searches couldn't turn it up).
>>> <#operational-semantics>
>>> I would have liked to have this as Section 2.  It had been long enough
>>> ago that I had forgotten these details.  Since section 5 is nice and
>>> short, I believe it would help the reader with any questions such as
>>> "what happens when one thing fails".
>>> <#path-expression>
>>> The example feels incomplete.  It also doesn't match the previous example.
>>> I would have expected this to walk through the path expression
>>> algorithm step by step, starting with showing the path expression (as
>>> you have) and then point out where in the graph it is with each step
>>> (perhaps even with a diagram highlighting the current node).  This
>>> would  be helpful with each expression type.
>>> <#UpdateList>
>>> Find definition fairly vague.  For example 9, if updating the 2nd
>>> entry in the array why not use the slice range of 1..1?  Would I get a
>>> different result?  Isn't example 11 the same as example 9, if used
>>> start-index of 1 instead? For example 11, it would be better to have a
>>> more useful example the aligns with the sample data you are using
>>> (list of only 2 items).
>>> I'm not sure what this means "To insert new values between two
>>> members, one can set a non empty list to the empty slice comprised
>>> between those two members."  Empty slice?
>>> I wouldn't know if I successfully implemented "insert".
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Simple grammer and typo problems:
>>> s/numver/number/
>>> <#prefixes>
>>> Seems like there should be a normative reference to namespaces (either
>>> RDF concepts and/or XML).
>>> <#node-matching-semantics>
>>> s/borrows much of its syntax to/borrows much of its syntax from/
>>> s/As a consequence, whenever a blank node identifiers/As a
>>> consequence, whenever blank node identifiers/
>>> s/adress/address/
>>> <#pathological-graph>
>>> Linked Data or linked data, seem to go back and forward between the two.
>>> <#bind>
>>> "subsequent Bound statements" I believe this should be "subsequent
>>> Bind statements"
>>> Regards,
>>> Steve

Received on Wednesday, 24 September 2014 20:37:57 UTC