Re: HTTP PATCH?

On 24 Mar 2010, at 13:28, Chimezie Ogbuji wrote:

> This issue was mentioned in Leigh Dodds' earlier comments and  
> addressed in
> the response to it:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2010Feb/0007.ht
> ml
>
> [[
>> * General question re: scope. The document at present describes a
>> mechanism for coarse grained graph updates, and does not attempt to
>> offer the fine-grained access that SPARQL 1.1 Update offers. But
>> there's a wide spectrum between those extras. For example the Talis
>> Changeset format and protocol provides a RESTful way to manage  
>> updates
>> to RDF graphs that is more expressive than the protocol described  
>> here
>> but less so that SPARQL Update. Are the WG likely to consider
>> something like Changesets too? (I note as an aside that there's at
>> least one completely independent implementation using Changesets).
>
> Unfortunately, the initial scope of the document was to cover the  
> minimal
> behavior covered by an intuitive interpretation of the HTTP protocol
> specification. As a result the granularity is quite coarse and more
> fine-grained interactions were delegated to the SPARQL Update  
> language.
> ]]

My (admittedly brief) reading of the PATCH semantics are that it would  
be a more appropriate verb to use inplace of/in addition to POST for  
additive updates.

- Steve

-- 
Steve Harris, Garlik Limited
2 Sheen Road, Richmond, TW9 1AE, UK
+44 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

Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2010 14:13:26 UTC