On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 9:00 PM, Andy Seaborne <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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? > Is uses the RDF API (so that it can be used on multiple backends). But as a project it would imho ideally be separated (I think Stanbol would be a good place). > > 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. > I've not yet looked at the details of section 5. For section I described compliance here: http://wiki.apache.org/clerezza/LinkedDataPlatform Reto > > Andy > > >
