- From: John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 10:33:22 -0500
- To: "public-ldp@w3.org" <public-ldp@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <OF051A333B.9D35A8FA-ON85257C59.0053DFCC-85257C59.00557436@us.ibm.com>
Martynas, this feels like violent agreement ;-) > How can the client submit the complete representation in a single RDF > graph (which here is the entity body), if a resource representation is > potentially constructed from multiple graphs, as my DESCRIBE example > shows? ... SPARQL DESCRIBE's output is an RDF graph, according to [1]. So "what's the problem?" if LDP's create-via-POST takes as input an RDF graph? If you're looking to preserve provenance, I think you're beyond Turtle and into other syntaxes like Trig. LDP requires Turtle but certainly allows others, so Trig and friends can play. > ... Or is it somehow partial representation that is meant here? Or > does the LDP prohibit multi-graph representations? <chorus> LDP requires Turtle but certainly allows others, so Trig and friends can play. </chorus> ;-) I don't know that we have an explicit MAY on others, but I suspect we do. Since the default reasoning is "in the absence of a MUST NOT, you can do anything" silence implicitly allows it; people sometimes object to explicit MAYs that convey the equivalent, but how far you take each is somewhat a matter of editorial taste. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/#QueryForms Best Regards, John Voice US 845-435-9470 BluePages Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario
Received on Tuesday, 7 January 2014 15:33:55 UTC