I think it would be prudent to include a discussion of PATCH in the 
SPARQL HTTP Update doc but also recognize that deployment of the verb is 
not widespread and may have slow take up so we have to live with systems 
that don't have access to it for sometime.

It's not in the Servlet API 3.0 (published Dec 2009) although this does 
not stop systems handling it - it's just not one of the verbs that has 
explicit helper methods. Client APIs may restrict setting verbs in requests.

SPARQL Update (language) could be a patch document - as could just some 
triples - if we codify the notion of dataset / graph store 
identification rather than just graph identification.


On 24/03/2010 2:22 PM, Chimezie Ogbuji wrote:
> On 3/24/10 10:06 AM, "Steve Harris"<>  wrote:
>> 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.
> I see it differently.  The semantics of POST are to accept the entity
> enclosed as a 'subordinate'.  The analogy of the relationship between a file
> and a directory is used to explain what is meant by a subordinate.  This
> suggests an additive operation.  The semantics of PATCH - on the other hand
> - are actually more inline with the general intent of the SPARQL Update
> language itself, since it says "With PATCH, however, the enclosed entity
> contains a set of instructions describing how a resource currently residing
> on the origin server should be modified to produce a new version"
> So it seems to me that the PATCH operation is equivalent to a SPARQL Update
> request at 'graph-level' granularity and that additive operations on an RDF
> graph (i.e. POST currently) are a subset of this.
> -- Chime
> ===================================
> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
> Cleveland Clinic is ranked one of the top hospitals
> in America by U.S.News&  World Report (2009).
> Visit us online at for
> a complete listing of our services, staff and
> locations.
> Confidentiality Note:  This message is intended for use
> only by the individual or entity to which it is addressed
> and may contain information that is privileged,
> confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable
> law.  If the reader of this message is not the intended
> recipient or the employee or agent responsible for
> delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are
> hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
> copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If
> you have received this communication in error,  please
> contact the sender immediately and destroy the material in
> its entirety, whether electronic or hard copy.  Thank you.
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> For more information please visit
> ______________________________________________________________________

Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2010 15:32:50 UTC