- From: <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 21:14:12 -0400
- To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- Cc: semantic-web <semantic-web@w3.org>, public-ldp <public-ldp@w3.org>, public-ldp-comments@w3.org, ericw3c@gmail.com
On 19.09.2014 22:02, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote: > On Sep 19, 2014 11:03 PM, "David Booth" <david@dbooth.org> wrote: > . . . I am very glad to > see progress toward supporting an RDF PATCH operation, and I am glad > to see the thinking that has gone into ensuring simplicity. However, > I also have concerns about inventing a new syntax. > > > > Overall, I think progress would be better served if, instead of > inventing a new syntax, a simple restricted set of operations were > defined as a *profile* of SPARQL 1.1 Update operations. I think this > would provide important benefits over inventing a new syntax: > > The front matter of the LDP Patch document included links to some > alternative proposals. http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/SparqlPatch [2] > seems the closest to what you propose. Can you say whether it or one > of the other proposals is closest to what you had in mind? There are two issues: (a) whether LDP Patch invents a new language versus using a subset of SPARQL 1.1 Update; and (b) what choice of capabilities it should support. My comment was addressing only the first of these two issues: I think it would be significantly advantageous to use a subset of SPARQL 1.1 Update rather than inventing a new language. I did not look closely at the differences in capabilities supported by SparqlPatch [2] versus the current draft of LD Patch [1], so I do not know exactly how their capabilities compare, but my assumption is that they are different and the working group as a whole thought that the capabilities reflected in LD Patch [1] would be a better set to standardize than those in SparqlPatch [2]. For this reason my intent was only to push for using *some* SPARQL 1.1 Update subset, but let the working group decide what subset of capabilities that should be. My assumption was that the working group would choose a subset similar to what is currently defined in LD Patch [1] (but using a subset of SPARQL 1.1 Update instead of inventing a new language). I hope that clarifies. Thanks! David > > Links: > ------ > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-ldpatch-20140918/ > [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/SparqlPatch > [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-ldpatch-20140918/
Received on Sunday, 21 September 2014 01:20:23 UTC