- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 14:18:50 +0100
- To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
Done UC&R Editors - use as you see fit, including removal if it does not fit the analysis structure. Anyone - feel free to edit and refine. It's a wiki. Andy On 12/09/12 00:35, Ashok Malhotra wrote: > Andy: > Could you update the Wiki at > http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Use_Cases_And_Requirements#Sharing_binary_resources_and_metadata > > with your observations. > 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 Wednesday, 12 September 2012 13:19:31 UTC