Hi all I totally agree with Rupert that we should provide the functionality on the (web-) service layer. In addition we could ad a basic, file-system-based implementation for binary resources. We had this functionality in LMF, the basis for Marmotta, so we can reuse most of the code. Of course, binary resources are not the main focus, but IMHO we should not completely throw them out!
Best regards Thomas On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Rupert Westenthaler < [email protected]> wrote: > HI all, > > IMO marmotta should > > * support Binary Resources on the RESTful service layer > * support creating of associated LDP-RR for binary resources as > described in 6.4.13 > * support 6.9.1 > > However I would recommend to exclude support for managing Binary resources. > > This could mean to define an Interface used by the RESTful service > level to manage Binary resources, but not providing a functional > implementation. The default implementation could e.g. throw Exceptions > that cause the RESTful service to answer resources in a way that > binary resource are not supported. > > Users that want to build a Semantic CMS would than be required to > provide a functional implementation of that interface. > > WDYT > Rupert > > > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Sergio Fernández > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > in the meeting that we just have at irc (minutes should arrive in another > > mail), we had the discussion about where Marmotta should start to > implement > > the LDP hierarchy: > > > > https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html#fig-ldpc-types > > > > LDP Resource > > | > > |-- LDP Binary Resource > > | > > |-- LDP RDF Resource > > | > > |-- LDP Container > > | > > |-- LDP Basic Container > > |-- LDP Direct Container > > |-- LDP Indirect Container > > > > Since the spec says: > > > > 6.4.4 LDP servers may accept an HTTP POST of non-RDF representations > > (LDP-BRs) for creation of any kind of resource, > > > > LDP-BRs ar enot mandatory. I know the "LDP Binary Resource" should be > easy > > to implement. But that's not the point for me. For me if about the scope > of > > the project. Even in the idea is a bit different, it's somehow related > with > > the old way LMF was managing metadata (RDF) and content (binaries). And I > > don't want to open the scope of the project for converting Marmotta in a > > Semantic CMS. > > > > But since both Jakob and Thomas had different points of view, I may be > > wrong. So I'd like to listen to more opinions about this issue. > > > > Cheers, > > > > -- > > Sergio Fernández > > Senior Researcher > > Knowledge and Media Technologies > > Salzburg Research Forschungsgesellschaft mbH > > Jakob-Haringer-Straße 5/3 | 5020 Salzburg, Austria > > T: +43 662 2288 318 | M: +43 660 2747 925 > > [email protected] > > http://www.salzburgresearch.at > > > > -- > | Rupert Westenthaler [email protected] > | Bodenlehenstraße 11 ++43-699-11108907 > | A-5500 Bischofshofen >
