Reevaluating N3 Patch vs. SPARQL Update in the Solid Protocol

This is not a new topic by any means but it may be worthwhile to revisit. Issues, PRs, minutes touching on "n3 patch" or "sparql update".

There are several hurdles related to N3 Patch in the Solid Protocol, ranging from the extent to which the N3 format needs to be standardised to the overall maturity of N3 Patch itself. Some of these concerns are technical, while others are process-oriented (within W3C and the broader standards community), and they need to be addressed. Additionally, implementation feedback must be taken into account, whether from actual verifiable implementations, public commitments to implement (which demonstrate tangible progress and genuine leadership), or other relevant factors.

To be brief: we originally used and implemented SPARQL Update in pre-v0.9 versions of the Solid Protocol (i.e., in drafts prior to the Solid CG or any publication of the specification), before switching to N3 Patch. That was largely due to certain implementation preferences and our needs. The reasoning behind this switch is documented in issues, PRs, and public discussions. And that was the best decision we were able to make at the time.

That said, there are multiple possible ways forward, and I'd be interested in exploring what may be most suitable given the current landscape. Any solution that the community is willing to adopt in a healthy way should be considered. Even a willful violation of SPARQL Update - but for example clarifying different status/error codes depending on the request/response payload - could be acceptable if it helps us move forward. At the same time, advancing N3 Patch and its related dependencies also remains desirable, as well as correcting implementations towards a desirable behaviour, but we need to see more concrete actions and progress toward adequate implementation experience.

Start with the linked search for issues and read the prior issues, pull requests, minutes, and public discussions about N3 Patch and SPARQL Update. Compare the documented hurdles, implementation feedback, and W3C adequate-implementation requirements. Done requires a community-backed decision on a viable protocol direction and the concrete progress needed to support it.