- From: james anderson <james@dydra.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 18:20:55 +0000
- To: "SPARQL 1.2 Community Group" <public-sparql-12@w3.org>
good evening, > On 2020-01-16, at 13:31:28, Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetil@kjernsmo.net> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I'm working on the Solid project[1], where we use Semantic Web technologies > intensively. For now, SPARQL is only used on the server side to update > documents, and not using the SPARQL Protocol, a SPARQL 1.1 Update query is > passed as the body of a PATCH request[2]. > > We have an open issue on the level of SPARQL 1.1 Update support Solid should > require[3], and I have been working on two points where there are some > tensions. I have a rather involved proposal to address them both in a > backwards compatible way, that I want to air with you. The TL;DR is: We > should support issue 63 [4] and introduce a conditional request header into > HTTP. > > These are the issues: > > 1) A semaphore mechanism for updates. > > [under certain circumstances], the Solid implementation > would return a 409 Conflict to the second client. ... > > 2) A mechanism to communicate status from write queries safely. > > […] > > What do you all think? the suggestion here does not convince any more than #60 did then. as per the comment from 19.june, it remains, that the application which is not prepared to model the meta-state and attempts to divine it from the incidental store state will have no way to guarantee integrity. the overhead incurred when each delete acts also as a probe is not justified.
Received on Thursday, 16 January 2020 18:21:02 UTC