W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > March 2018

Re: Seeking LDP server recommendations

From: Andrew Woods <awoods@duraspace.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 10:25:23 -0400
Message-ID: <CADz=0Um5A2gXJwWu+2DKk6HG=X+KQhd7zAU2iUKaAvQXLe2oOg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@oerc.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: "semantic-web@w3.org" <semantic-web@w3.org>
Hello Graham,
The Fedora Repository application is an LDP server, that supports all three
container types, installs as a drop-in war file or (for testing) as an
executable jar file, and is actively maintained.

https://github.com/fcrepo4/fcrepo4/releases
https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/FEDORA475/Quick+Start
http://fedorarepository.org/features

Feel free to experiment with our demo server:
http://demo.fcrepo.org:8080/fcrepo/ (fedoraAdmin:secret3)

Please reach out if you have any questions: fedora-tech@googlegroups.com

Regards,
Andrew

On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 4:09 AM, Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@oerc.ox.ac.uk>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> A team I'm working with are looking to do explore some designs using LDP (
> http://www.w3.org/TR/ldp/) - as part of this, we're looking to stand up
> an off-the-shelf LDP server for our tests.
>
> We've looked at a few of the options mentioned at
> https://www.w3.org/wiki/LDP_Implementations, but so far the ones we've
> tried have been less than fully satisfactory:
>
> - Apache Marmotta - project appears to be dead (not updated since 2014?)
> - ldnode - didn't get running, possibly becauxe of complex node
> dependencies
> - gold - this is what we're using for now, as it was easy enough to get
> running.  But it's prone to unexpected failures without any diagnostics
> (e.g. fails silently when loading Turtle data with comments; returns
> garbage data).  It is also a Solid container, there is ACL configuration
> that complicates the setup if not run in debug mode.
>
> What we're looking for is an LDP server that:
>
> 1. supports Basic LDP containers (direct/indirect not needed)
> 2. is easy to install (on a Linux host server) (*)
> 3. is easy to configure (*)
> 4. is reasonably reliable and maintained
>
> (*) these might amount to simply having reliable "getting started"
> documentation
>
> Any suggestions?
>
> Thanks!
>
> #g
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 19 March 2018 14:25:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 19 March 2018 14:26:02 UTC