- From: Paul Gearon <gearon@ieee.org>
- Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 13:26:43 -0500
- To: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com> wrote: > On 30/11/10 18:23, Chimezie Ogbuji wrote: >> >> Subject: Open HTTP Update issues for discussion <snip/> >> * ISSUE-56 (PATCH HTTP/Update and SPARQL Update payload) [1] <snip/> >> In particular, SPARQL Update ... > > I confess I don't quite understand this. The 400 and 404 text above seem to > both talk about a graph other than the PATCH target. > > Could you give examples of the two cases? > Isn't the request URI the target of the PATCH request? > > I don't think a SPARQL Update request ever addresses a graph - it's the > graph store, right? GET returns meta data about teh graph store, (303?) It occurs to me that I wasn't clear about my interest in using PATCH. In the case where a request is issued against a store, then I am against the use of PATCH. (Unless we want to allow users to enable features on a store by PATCHing the capabilities document) :-) There are some stores (including Mulgara) which allow graphs to be referenced with a URI. In some cases that URI is *the* name of the graph, in others it acts as an alias (e.g. http://endpoint/sparql?graph=original_graph_uri). I was only interested in PATCH applying to graphs that can be referenced in this way - a capability that I am familiar with, but which is outside of the SPARQL spec. The majority opinion in last week's call was that we not use PATCH, and I can live with that. Regards, Paul Gearon
Received on Tuesday, 14 December 2010 18:27:16 UTC