- From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 22:02:03 -0400
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Cc: semantic-web <semantic-web@w3.org>, public-ldp <public-ldp@w3.org>, public-ldp-comments@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CANfjZH3YDHPi2Nters-CfX3-RDxiUpDe0QAhFN4Gef9+7rTpdQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Sep 19, 2014 11:03 PM, "David Booth" <david@dbooth.org> wrote: > > On 09/18/2014 06:30 PM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> I'm pleased to announce that the LDP WG just published the Linked Data >> Patch Format First Public Working Draft: >> _http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-ldpatch-20140918/_ >> >> I want to stress that the WG is seeking feedback from the community at >> large on the direction being proposed. > > > Thank you for the work that has gone into this! I am very glad to see progress toward supporting an RDF PATCH operation, and I am glad to see the thinking that has gone into ensuring simplicity. However, I also have concerns about inventing a new syntax. > > Overall, I think progress would be better served if, instead of inventing a new syntax, a simple restricted set of operations were defined as a *profile* of SPARQL 1.1 Update operations. I think this would provide important benefits over inventing a new syntax: The front matter of the LDP Patch document included links to some alternative proposals. http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/SparqlPatch seems the closest to what you propose. Can you say whether it or one of the other proposals is closest to what you had in mind? > - Users would not have to learn yet another syntax that is confusingly similar to SPARQL. Using a single language decreases development and maintenance costs. > > - Implementers could simply plug in an existing general-purpose SPARQL engine to get a new system up and running quickly. Later if they decide that it is worth the development cost to optimize performance, they could replace the general-purpose SPARQL engine with special-purpose engine that is stripped down and optimized for this profile. > > - Implementers would have the option of supporting additional SPARQL 1.1 Update operations, beyond what the profile requires, in a consistent 100% compatible way. > > I suggest that the LDP working group define an RDF PATCH operation as a *profile* of SPARQL 1.1 Update, restricted to a set of operations similar to those defined in the current Linked Data Patch Format draft: > http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-ldpatch-20140918/ > > Thanks, > David >
Received on Saturday, 20 September 2014 02:02:34 UTC