On 2/21/15 9:48 AM, Martynas Jusevičius wrote:
How do you minimize the user interaction space i.e., reduce clutter -- >especially if you have a lot of relations in scope or the possibility that >such becomes the reality over time? >I don't think concurrent updates I related to "resources" or specific to our editor.
Okay, so your editor simply writes data assuming the destination (a store of some sort) handles conflicts, right?
The Linked Data platform (whatever it is) and its HTTP logic has to deal with ETags and 409 Conflict etc.
Dealing with conflict is intrinsic to this problem space.
I was wondering if this logic should be part of specifications such as the Graph Store Protocol: https://twitter.com/pumba_lt/status/545206095783145472 But I haven't an answer. Maybe it's an oversight on the W3C side?
No, I think it boils to down to implementations. A client or a server may or may not be engineered to deal with these matters.
We scope the description edited either by a) SPARQL query or b) named graph content.
Yes, but these activities will inevitably encounter conflicts, which take different shapes and forms:
1. one user performing insert, updates, deletes in random order 2. many users performing the activities above, close-to-concurrently .Ideally, the client should have the ability to determine a delta prior to its write attempt. The nature of the delta is affected by the relation in question. Similar issues arise in situations where relations are represented as tables, it just so happens that the destination store is a SQL RDBMS which has in-built functionality for handling these matters, via different concurrency and locking schemes (which can be at the record, table, or page levels).
Bearing in mind what's stated above, ideally, an RDF Editor shouldn't assume it's writing to an RDBMS equipped with the kind of functionality that a typical SQL RDBMS would posses. Thus, it needs to have some kind of optimistic concurrency mechanism (over HTTP) that leverages the kind of grouping that named graphs, rdf relations, and rdf statement reification provide.
To conclude, its a good thing that we are now talking about RDF Editors and Read-Write Web issues. The silence on this matter, in relation to Linked Open Data, has been deafening :)
-- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder & CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog 1: http://kidehen.blogspot.com Personal Weblog 2: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
