- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 18:19:55 +0100
- To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
On 10/09/12 17:39, Steve K Speicher wrote: > "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." > http://www.w3.org/Submission/ldbp/#bpr-general This is good because Henry's UC is, to my reading, closing in on the fact that the "resource" comes in two parts - here, the image and information about the image (which may in the image file but better external to it as it's more general). A key issue for our work is whether to link these two elements or treat them separately: Coupled: e.g. allow a single POST/PUT with RDF and non-RDF parts, and have the BPR server manage the URI naming for the non-RDF part. Separate: e.g. require the image to be put somewhere with a URL, then receive just the metadata as a BPR. I'd like to go down the coupled direction unless there is a barrier because the separate case places a co-ordination burden on the client apps. Whether the binary part is subsidiary to the RDF part, I don't know what the pros an cons are. At the moment though, I don't see it as a significant extra work item and still about "protocol". Andy
Received on Monday, 10 September 2012 17:20:24 UTC