Hi all, I'm also in favor adding LDP-BR to marmotta.
We can design the architecture to allow different BR-backends (and provide a simple, e.g. file-system-based, default) like we currently do with the different rdf-backends. Best, Jakob On 13 February 2014 10:42, Thomas Kurz <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >>
