- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 23:29:25 -0500
- To: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
- Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
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. True. Hrm. 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