On 19/11/12 14:13, Reto Bachmann-Gmür wrote:
> - Linked Data Platform: Reto I guess you have missed this
>presentation [1] at ApacheCon. IMO a Linked Data Platform is something
>that deserves an own project and as soon as there is such a Platform
>available we should use it in Stanbol. This would allow us to remove a
>lot of code in Stanbol (especially in the Entityhub) - a good thing as
>it allows to focus more on core features of Stanbol.
>
I don't think this can really be compared. Clerezza is already quite close
to comfroming with the Linked Data Platform Specification. It has a
lightweigh arcitecture very similar to Stanbol based on OSGi. By contrast
Salzburg Research Marmotta/Linda proposal is a Java Enterprise application
that ceratinly could use some stanbol services but which has a quite
different architecture. The W3C LDP isn't describing a heavy weight
architecture but a set of recommendation on how to use the REST principles
in the context of linked data. If stanbol wants to provide the promised
RESTfull services it should strive for compliance with LDP specifications.
That would be good. This is separate from the RDF API?
At the HTTP protocol level W3C/LDP is quite light - but even the plain
LDP/resources , there is a need to interpret the vocuabulary and
maintain certain triples in the data. LDP/containers are somewhat more
complicated (and evolving) with POST generating URIs, paging and again
needing vocabulary interpretation.
There is a need to make some real design decisions - LDP is not a spec
for a generic server you can implement. It might be IF the WG decides
on how clients can create containers and containers-in-containers - it
is just as likely that the container structure will be fixed by "the
application", so configuration of the server-side will be a major part
of any project. But it's a very big IF.
The access control is important.
How much of this does Clerezza show? The WG would be interested to hear
about it.
Andy
