I did read some of the working group discussions around the patch format and some of the stuff they were discussing made me want to cry at the horrific syntax abuses some people were proposing to make
Steering them towards something that is simpler like RDF patch would seem a good idea Rob On 6/20/13 3:03 PM, "Andy Seaborne" <[email protected]> wrote: > >BTW, I got a ping from LDP-WG about a patch format. That WG want >something sub-SPARQL, this maybe a useful input. > > >I've looked before at RDF-encoded versions (Talis ChangeSets, using >TriG) but without further syntax or processing rules, they don't stream >and it needs a whole request read in before processing. That a severe >limitation. > >Example: > >@prefix diff: <http://example/diff#> . >@prefix : <http://example/data#> . > ><#g2> { :s :p 456 } ><#g1> { :s :p 123 } > ><#g1> { :x :q "foo" } > >{ <> diff:delete <#g1> ; > diff:insert <#g2> . >} > >with the manifest default graph last, you can't tell anything about ><#g1> or <#g2> so the best I can imagine is to stash them away somewhere. > >And does not cope with datasets (a graph-grouped complex manifest would >work but then any simplicity is lost and production of such patches is >looking a bit troublesome) > >And then there's blank nodes. > >Restricted SPARQL Update(INSERT DATA, DELETE DATA) sort of works ... >except bNodes. An advantage is adding naturally "DROP GRAPH" and >"DELETE WHERE". > > Andy >
