W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp-wg@w3.org > September 2012

Re: LDP user story: sharing binary resources and metadata

From: Steve K Speicher <sspeiche@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 12:39:28 -0400
To: Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org>
Cc: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFB5068A91.916544BE-ON85257A75.005AF5E4-85257A75.005B8195@us.ibm.com>
Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org> wrote on 09/10/2012 12:11:29 PM:
> From: Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org>
> To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>, 
> Cc: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
> Date: 09/10/2012 12:15 PM
> Subject: Re: LDP user story: sharing binary resources and metadata
> On 09/10/2012 09:40 AM, Henry Story wrote:
> > Here is my proposal for a use case relating to sharing binary 
> >
> > [[
> > Very often we need to publish both resources and the metadata that 
> with them. Or inversely the data we publish contains links to binary 
> resources such as pictures, videos, or other less data oriented 
> (works of literature, legal documents, etc...) For the data publishing 
to be
> complete, the binary resources need to be published with the data. Even 
> the binary resources are the primary concern of publication, the 
> that puts it in context is just as essential: when publishing a picture 
> space we need to know which telescope took the picture, which part of 
> sky it was pointing at, what filters were used, which identified stars 
> visible, etc... For more personal resources we want to know who appears 
> 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 
> in the picture. As such the linked data platform needs to make it 
> to publish data and !
>  binary res
> 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?
> 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.

Well, maybe it wasn't discussed as clearly as it could.  For example, it 
is covered in statements like:
"4.1.3 BPR servers MAY host a mixture of BPRs and non-BPRs. For example, 
it is common for BPR servers to need to host binary or text resources that 
do not have useful RDF representations." 

I'm curious what part of the charter prohibits this?

> 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'm not sure what context to give other than the member submission, 
charter and the use cases we are developing.

Steve Speicher
IBM Rational Software
OSLC - Lifecycle integration inspired by the web -> 
Received on Monday, 10 September 2012 16:40:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:17:31 UTC