Re: Reflections on Update

On 8 May 2009, at 17:58, Seaborne, Andy wrote:

> This is to suggest that we start with a smaller set of capabilities  
> for update.  Sort of split update into "phase 1" and "phase 2".
>
> Looking back on the discussion, the timescale we have and the  
> overall set of features, it seems to me that making sure some core  
> part of update made visible to the community early would be a good  
> course of action.
>
> The core might be changes to some graph, without specifying which  
> graph as part of the update language.  This would also help shake  
> out the alternatives of a non-language based approach although what  
> I took away is that ideas for a non-language approach do not  
> immediately extend to collections of graphs without particular  
> models of relating name to graph (so they aren't a panacea).

That sounds good to me.

Update without any way to control the graph would be essentially  
useless to us, but I guess we get the use the dataset features in the  
protocol to restrict as a workaround, if the WG doesn't get as far as  
phase 2.

- Steve

-- 
Steve Harris
Garlik Limited, 2 Sheen Road, Richmond, TW9 1AE, UK
+44(0)20 8973 2465  http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10  
9AD