-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 58
Drafting SPARQL Update support #320
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Draft
kjetilk
wants to merge
13
commits into
main
Choose a base branch
from
feature/sparql-update
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Draft
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
13 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
3193a36
Basic scaffolding for defining SPARQL Update in Solid
kjetilk 829697f
Add source
kjetilk 0a56dcd
Initial definition of SPARQL subset grammar
kjetilk b59fd2d
Fix missing curly brackets
kjetilk 1b714f8
Don't number the appendix
kjetilk fbd5990
Simplify the BNF
kjetilk 65cb624
Reintroduce DeleteWhere
kjetilk 79d5021
Update change count
kjetilk fed2294
Adopt NSS behaviour for SPARQL Update
kjetilk 7545e63
Propose to use the 422 response for outside of subset
kjetilk e7b3b07
Fix id
kjetilk 9f483f5
Add overview section, link Yacker for completeness
kjetilk 3210404
Merge pull request #321 from solid/experiment/sparql-update-simplify
kjetilk File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Something about them being cumulative?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, that's a good point.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmmm, I'm inclined to say it is covered actually, as I say "contains"... Does it really need further elaboration?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'd still be explicit; right now this could be read as a priority list (stop when match) or a cumulative list. The "contains" does not change that.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Maybe ditch the 2112 and introduce a
Request Actions
concept? Each line could say "theRequest Actions
include Read operation."There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I feel like i'm missing a subtlety about why containing a DELETE implies READ.