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

Re: LDP user story: sharing binary resources and metadata

From: Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 13:07:38 -0700
Message-ID: <504E488A.1060801@oracle.com>
To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
Coupled approach makes sense to me!
All the best, Ashok

On 9/10/2012 10:19 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>
>
> 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 20:08:08 UTC

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