| CARVIEW |
Select Language
HTTP/2 301
date: Thu, 09 Oct 2025 04:56:48 GMT
content-type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
location: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Aug/0055.html
cf-ray: 98bb4b207e936f7a-BLR
cache-control: max-age=21600
expires: Thu, 09 Oct 2025 10:56:48 GMT
x-backend: www-mirrors
x-request-id: 98bb4b207e936f7a
strict-transport-security: max-age=15552000; includeSubdomains; preload
content-security-policy: frame-ancestors 'self' https://cms.w3.org/ https://cms-dev.w3.org/; upgrade-insecure-requests
cf-cache-status: EXPIRED
set-cookie: __cf_bm=cq1fFtONNCrYy6_KJ6SHJSjVXhgixZ5AzwXyYJ1bO_A-1759985808-1.0.1.1-JgZSA8XYPuqdEUdPOYiiUtFjzzdKABJQsfuSiTcWIO6OS1TPbl1p_iOvG1HgS8XqM0Hxxz8.x.mNxv4Kqdtw6BQxNY9yEMiAZ3QlW5mzOcU; path=/; expires=Thu, 09-Oct-25 05:26:48 GMT; domain=.w3.org; HttpOnly; Secure; SameSite=None
vary: Accept-Encoding
server: cloudflare
alt-svc: h3=":443"; ma=86400
HTTP/2 200
date: Thu, 09 Oct 2025 04:56:49 GMT
content-type: text/html
content-encoding: gzip
last-modified: Thu, 13 Jul 2023 17:43:26 GMT
cache-control: max-age=2592000, public
expires: Sat, 08 Nov 2025 04:56:48 GMT
vary: Accept-Encoding
access-control-allow-origin: *
x-request-id: 98bb4b25ac8d8e4d
strict-transport-security: max-age=15552015; preload
x-frame-options: deny
x-xss-protection: 1; mode=block
cf-cache-status: MISS
server: cloudflare
cf-ray: 98bb4b25ac8d8e4d-BLR
alt-svc: h3=":443"; ma=86400
Re: ISSUE-100: Should ld-patch use a slash like sparql does, instead of as it currently does? from Andy Seaborne on 2014-08-18 (public-ldp-wg@w3.org from August 2014)
Re: ISSUE-100: Should ld-patch use a slash like sparql does, instead of as it currently does?
- From: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
- Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 21:58:22 +0100
- To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <53F268EE.8030503@apache.org>
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: "performed against an RDF Graph" ==> "performed against a Linked Data Platform Resource" "for updating RDF Graphs" ==> "for updating Linked Data Platform Resources" Andy
Received on Monday, 18 August 2014 20:58:51 UTC