Hi alto-cdni authors and WG, According to the discussion during our interim meeting today, I just have two comments:
1. It is not a good idea to introduce a new Map service for CDNI FCI. There are two reasons: a) CDNI FCI is not a map but an information base. b) If we really want to use a Map service to provide the CDNI FCI, the property map is already enough. If we want some features which the property map cannot provide, I think a new Map service can neither provide them. 2. I hope some author can provide a concrete example or use case to show the property map is not enough for CDNI FCI. If we really have the motivation, I think a new service is required. But it should not be a Map service. Just my 2 cents. Thanks, Jensen On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 10:43 AM Shawn Lin <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear ALTOers, > > > For ALTO CDNI draft, there are two points that may need to be discussed > in this interim meeting. > > > > 1. The motivation of filtering on capabilities/filtering on footprints > may not be strong enough. Is it proper for us to send Email to CDNI WG and > ask comments from them? > 2. The current structure of capabilities with footprints may not be > suitable for map representation (no primary key). One potential > solution is to merge entries with the same CDNI capability so that we can > use the CDNI capability as the primary key. But it is not efficient in some > cases. We will discuss it at the meeting. > > > Sorry, I do not have time to attend the meeting this time, so Jensen will > be the presenter for CDNI. @Jensen, thank you so much for your help! > > > Bests, > > Shawn Lin > _______________________________________________ > alto mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto >
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
