Re: LD Patch review

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Steve Speicher <sspeiche@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey Alexandre,
>
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Alexandre Bertails
> <alexandre@bertails.org> 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 =
<http://example.com/bugs/2314>][/rdf:predicate =
oslc_cm:relatedChangeRequest][/rdf:object =
<http://myserver/mycmapp/bugs/1235>] .
```

Alexandre

[2] https://github.com/betehess/banana-rdf/blob/73f0b72c8b06a7255aed3e979cd29e160abf6500/ldpatch/src/test/scala/OSLCCorePartialUpdate.scala#L86-L93

>
> - Steve
>
> [1]: http://open-services.net/wiki/core/OSLC-Core-Partial-Update/
>
>> Alexandre
>>
>> [1] https://github.com/w3c/banana-rdf/blob/topic/ldpatch/ldpatch/src/test/java/JenaPatchDemo.java
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 4:46 PM, Steve Speicher <sspeiche@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Really glad to see we are progressing on patch.
>>>
>>> Here are some comments on: http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-ldpatch-20140918/
>>>
>>> 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