Thank you for your comments. See our response inline below

> This problem is avoided when using PATCH. It's interesting to note that relational technologies have no equivalent of PUT. > Relational UPDATE is conceptually more like PATCH - it allows you to update only the predicates you can name, with > the current value of the other predicates being preserved by the server. Has there been any discussions about this?

Sandro brought to our attention a Linked Data protocol that discusses this and it was brought to our attention. We are discussion how to incorporate this as a consideration into the text of the current Graph Store protocol.

> 2) Using PUT to create a new resource requires the client to know the URI of the resource. In our RDF applications, > the client typically doesn't know and the URI is set by the server. For this reason we favor using POST to create > resources but I wonder whether there was any discussion about this?

Yes and this is one of the motivations for the POST mechanism that you quoted.

> However, the draft is silent on how this IRI should be written in the "statements in the RDF payload" given that it isn't known by the client yet.

The WG has determined that service description is out of scope for this specification, so the Graph store URI is assumed to be known by the client and is the same URI that indirect identification is used with as well as the request URI for POST in order to create resources and have their URIs assigned by the server (ala Atom Publish(er?) Protocol)

We'd appreciate if you could indicate whether this response adequately addresses your comment.

Chime Ogbuji

(On behalf of the SPARQL Working Group)

Last modified on 20 December 2011, at 15:28