- From: Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 13:16:36 -0400
- To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- CC: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
On 09/10/2012 12:24 PM, Henry Story wrote: > > On 10 Sep 2012, at 18:11, Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org> wrote: > >> On 09/10/2012 09:40 AM, Henry Story wrote: >>> Here is my proposal for a use case relating to sharing binary resources: >>> >>> [[ >>> Very often we need to publish both resources and the metadata that goes with them. Or inversely the data we publish contains links to binary resources such as pictures, videos, or other less data oriented documents (works of literature, legal documents, etc...) For the data publishing to be complete, the binary resources need to be published with the data. Even when the binary resources are the primary concern of publication, the metadata that puts it in context is just as essential: when publishing a picture of space we need to know which telescope took the picture, which part of the sky it was pointing at, what filters were used, which identified stars are visible, etc... For more personal resources we want to know who appears in the picture, where it was taken, and who can see it. One may for example want to allow the access control rules to be edited by the people who appear in the picture. As such the linked data platform needs to make it possible to publish data and binary r es >> ources. >>> ]] >>> >>> Does that make a good user story/use case? >> >> It's really too bad that I cannot attend the LDP meetings because of a >> conflict with another one... >> >> I'm not sure I understand how the WG came to considerer use-cases that >> would go beyond the scope of the charter, which I thought was pretty >> much focused on using REST to interact with RDF data in Web-documents? > > Well publishing web documents does in my view require publishing binaries. > I like web pages with images in them. :-) You know that I agree with that. But I thought that it is a matter of priorities in what's needed first. > >> Of course, that's only an opinion (mine) but I thought that would be >> pretty clear as this stuff was not discussed in the IBM Submission at >> all. > > I don't think that publishing a binary is going to be a big change. > It's just a POST to a collection that allows image/* . It may be that > other specs can provide for that if it is too complicated. > > I think the user stories were more light weight ideas of things one could do > with the LDP. Yeah, nothing is really difficult. That's maybe what the people who made WebDAV also thought :-) Alexandre. > >> >> It looks like the direction taken is much more about a complete >> Platform instead of just the Protocol... Don't get me wrong, I think >> this is important, but I fear that this can go into many directions, >> while the most important thing is still to know how to talk to the >> server in a standardized way... >> >> Can anybody give some context? > > I am probably not the best to provide context. The good news is that > it was decided today to start with the IBM submission and publish that > as a first working draft. I think it is then up to us who implement this to > come up with simple changes to the document for the use cases to be implementable. > Clearly if those changes require 5 extra pages, then that would not be a good idea.... > > But others can perhaps provide more/different contexts... > > Henry > >> >> Alexandre. >> >>> >>> Henry >>> >>> Social Web Architect >>> http://bblfish.net/ >>> >>> >>> >> > > Social Web Architect > http://bblfish.net/ > >
Received on Monday, 10 September 2012 17:16:56 UTC