- From: Alexandre Bertails <alexandre@bertails.org>
- Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 10:01:50 -0400
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
- Cc: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 3:57 AM, Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org> wrote: > On 19/08/14 02:30, Alexandre Bertails wrote: >> >> Andy, >> >> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 6:18 PM, Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> On 18/08/14 22:07, Alexandre Bertails wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 4:58 PM, Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 18/08/14 21:13, Alexandre Bertails wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> What do you want exactly to highlight in the draft? We are already >>>>>> saying the following: >>>>>> >>>>>> [[ >>>>>> The LD Patch format described in this document should be seen as an >>>>>> "assembly language" for updating RDF Graphs. It is the intention to >>>>>> confine its expressive power to an RDF diff with minimal support for >>>>>> blank nodes and rdf:list manipulations. For more powerful operations >>>>>> on RDF Graphs and Quad Stores, the LDP WG recommends the reader to >>>>>> consider SPARQL Update. >>>>>> ]] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I think that it would be clearer if if said the patch was for Linked >>>>> Data >>>>> Platform Resources: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> That is exactly how LDP-RS is already defined in the specification [1] >>>> so you can consider it as an alias. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> "performed against an RDF Graph" >>>>> ==> >>>>> "performed against a Linked Data Platform Resource" >>>>> >>>>> "for updating RDF Graphs" >>>>> ==> >>>>> "for updating Linked Data Platform Resources" Oh, I now see what you meant and you are totally right. That's a great characterization of LD Patch. I have made some editorial changes in the text [1]. Do you think they capture well what you said? Alexandre [1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/rev/66030a2d0f9f >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> IMO, what's important is that it doesn't claim to do more than it >>>> actually does. In practice, it really works against RDF graphs. >>> >>> >>> >>> It is targetted at a subset of graphs as the itself text explains. >> >> >> Do you refer to the pathological graphs [2]? In any case, I agree that >> "with minimal support for blank nodes" should point to [2] to make the >> restriction clear. Otherwise, the input is an RDF Graph as defined at >> [3]. > >> >> >> [2] >> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/ldpatch/ldpatch.html#pathological-graph >> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-rdf-graph >> >>> This >>> document makes no reference to LDP except to say it is the product of the >>> LDP-WG hence my suggestion to clarify the introduction text. >> >> >> LDP just defers the HTTP PATCH to something else. That PATCH format >> doesn't have to be tied to LDP itself. LD Patch has no technical >> dependency on LDP. > > > > LD Patch is resource-centric, which is no bad thing, and it is helpful to > explain that in the introduction > > "for updating resources" > "for updating linked data resources" > > This working group's remit is to produce an Linked Data Platform and LD > Patch comes out of that remit. > > Andy > > >> >> Alexandre >> >>> >>> Andy >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Alexandre >>>> >>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/ldp/#dfn-linked-data-platform-rdf-source >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Andy >>>>> >>>>> >>> >> > >
Received on Wednesday, 20 August 2014 14:02:21 UTC