I'm just catching up here. I fully agree with what Al says about not
overloading the edit-media link.
#g
--
Alistair Miles wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> Apologies again, please bear in mind these comments are based on a partial
> reading of the doc, will hopefully have more time to read in full soo
Hi Ian,
On 18/03/11 09:11, Ian Stuart wrote:
> On 17/03/11 19:37, Richard Jones wrote:
>>> In this second, expanded, view there are three things one need to define
>>> within the discussion
>>>
>>> 1) What the singular Thing is: a (zip|xml|csv|xyz) file
>>> 2) What "standard" the manifest file is
Hi Richard,
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 08:17:28PM +, Richard Jones wrote:
> Hi Alistair,
>
> Thanks for this detailed analysis. I believe your point is
> completely valid, and I hadn't considered it before. Some thoughts
> in line ...
>
> >Apologies again, please bear in mind these comments a
Hi Richard,
(See comment inline below)
On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 19:37 +, Richard Jones wrote:
> Hi Ian,
>
> On 15/03/11 11:55, Ian Stuart wrote:
> > On 14/03/11 21:21, Richard Jones wrote:
> >> I think that a large part of what SWORD adds to AtomPub is how you talk
> >> about packaging. We're
On 17/03/11 19:37, Richard Jones wrote:
>> In this second, expanded, view there are three things one need to define
>> within the discussion
>>
>> 1) What the singular Thing is: a (zip|xml|csv|xyz) file
>> 2) What "standard" the manifest file is written to (METS, EPrintsXML,
>> etc)
>> 3) What
Hi Alistair,
Thanks for this detailed analysis. I believe your point is completely
valid, and I hadn't considered it before. Some thoughts in line ...
> Apologies again, please bear in mind these comments are based on a partial
> reading of the doc, will hopefully have more time to read in ful
Hi Ian,
On 15/03/11 11:55, Ian Stuart wrote:
> On 14/03/11 21:21, Richard Jones wrote:
>> I think that a large part of what SWORD adds to AtomPub is how you talk
>> about packaging. We're definitely not going to go down the route of
>> specifying package formats or support levels outside of AtomPu
Hi Richard,
Apologies again, please bear in mind these comments are based on a partial
reading of the doc, will hopefully have more time to read in full soon. More
inline...
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 06:08:56PM +, Richard Jones wrote:
> >I notice in the current spec you overload the 'edit-media
On 14/03/11 21:21, Richard Jones wrote:
> I think that a large part of what SWORD adds to AtomPub is how you talk
> about packaging. We're definitely not going to go down the route of
> specifying package formats or support levels outside of AtomPub's basic
> definitions. What I'd be particularly i
Hi Folks,
Please keep the packaging discussions on-list if you prefer, or you can
move the discussion to the main sword technical list where practitioners
might have some input for you.
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sword-app-tech
SWORD has to support your packaging needs, so it
Hi Ian,
I think that a large part of what SWORD adds to AtomPub is how you talk
about packaging. We're definitely not going to go down the route of
specifying package formats or support levels outside of AtomPub's basic
definitions. What I'd be particularly interested to know is whether you
Hi Tim,
>> If the server supported adding further media resource to the package, you
>> could advertise this by including an app:collection element within the feed
>> document, as per [2]. I.e., clients would do a POST to the package-contents
>> collection URI, as per standard Atom protocol for cr
Hi Alistair,
Sorry about the long delay in responding. It was pretty frantic trying
to get a draft of the spec ready for review! Now going back over the
discussions that have been on this list and looking for things to use to
enhance it.
Responses inline ...
> I just had a skim of the SWORD
Could that conversation be taken off list please. I still feel that the
packaging conversation is clouding some of the more basic needs of SWORDv2.
I'll spawn another thread on that and the Dev8D conversations when I have time.
Cheers
Dave T
On 22 Feb 2011, at 16:15, Ian Stuart wrote:
>
On 22/02/11 16:02, Robert D. Sanderson wrote:
>
> I'm happy to discuss ORE if that's of interest.
Rob,
You'll need to explain it to me first and I'm thinking I need a
handle on Linked Data before you can get very far with that ;-)
--
Ian Stuart.
Developer: Open Access Repository Junction
I'm happy to discuss ORE if that's of interest.
Rob
> On 21/02/11 22:27, Graham Klyne wrote:
>> On the topic of packaging, I don't think this should be progressed in
>> isolation. There's a community of interest in e-Research looking at
>> "Research Objects", which share many high-level requirem
On 21/02/11 22:27, Graham Klyne wrote:
> On the topic of packaging, I don't think this should be progressed in
> isolation. There's a community of interest in e-Research looking at
> "Research Objects", which share many high-level requirements with
> "packages" for deposition - roughly, composite o
> On 18/02/11 12:52, David Tarrant wrote:
>> I think that, if you want to upload a package, don't expect to be able
>> to edit parts of the package.
>>
>> I feel if you want to edit using packages, then you delete the previous
>> version and upload a whole new package.
>> Supporting more fea
On 18/02/11 12:52, David Tarrant wrote:
>
> On 18 Feb 2011, at 12:49, Ian Stuart wrote:
>
>> SWORD is a transport mechanism... we all understand that - but sword can
>> either be a bling truck
>> (http://farm1.static.flickr.com/120/307424194_ccb7df1246.jpg) or a
>> container
>> (http://www.shipping
On 18/02/11 12:05, Tim Brody wrote:
> Your comment is along the same lines as what I have suggested (but
> probably not as clearly). I'm pushing this as an alternative to
> packaging though. My feeling is it is simpler to spec (hence implement)
> multiple URIs to represent a package than it is to a
On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 15:44 +, Alistair Miles wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
[snip]
> If the server supported adding further media resource to the package, you
> could advertise this by including an app:collection element within the feed
> document, as per [2]. I.e., clients would do a POST to the pa
Hi Richard,
I just had a skim of the SWORDProfile spec in SVN [1], I'm guessing this is
the one you're working on?
I had a couple of thoughts, this is the first time I've seen the proposals
for SWORD v2, and haven't been involved in any previous discussions, so
apologies if you've been through t
Hi Dave,
This looks interesting, definitely chat about it this week. In the mean
time, you could try pointing your client at the Simple SWORD Server:
https://sword-app.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/sword-app/sss/trunk/
I'm very close now to a draft of the spec to be implemented against. I
don'
23 matches
Mail list logo
