Re: next steps on http graph store protocol

On Fri, 2012-01-06 at 12:50 -0800, Gregory Williams wrote:
> On Jan 6, 2012, at 12:43 PM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> > We debated that, but Eric and I, reading 2616 felt like it made sense to
> > name it after the class of resources called out in the spec, which uses
> > the term "append".   Of course, for RDF, Append means Merge, but we were
> > thinking the RDF case doesn't need it's own name for this.
> Well… My point was that for RDF, it needn't mean merge. I can imagine a trivial service that actually did append n-triples or turtle content, which would yield a non-merge w.r.t. any shared blank node IDs in the POSTed content and the resource being POSTed to.



It would sure be nice to have that option -- doing union instead of
merge -- wouldn't it?   Of course, that wouldn't work with blank nodes
that don't even have local labels, but if they had local labels, it
would be nice to be able to use them.   I wonder why we should forbid
that?   I guess it's nice for the server to be able to change bnode
labels, in theory, at least.

Anyway, you make a good point; I'm fine with "Merge" (eg
http:PostMeansMerge or post:MergeResource)  instead of "Union" or
"Append" for this.

   -- Sandro

Received on Saturday, 7 January 2012 04:29:38 UTC