- From: Sjoerd van Groning <sjoerd@muze.nl>
- Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2023 15:26:46 +0100
- To: public-solid@w3.org
Op 31/10/2023 om 14:31 schreef David Mason: > On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 01:52:50PM +0100, Melvin Carvalho wrote: >> You've described a use case that requires merging, and given a beautiful >> example of how a triple store makes merging cheaper.** I agree. >> However making merging cheaper comes at a cost. >> Now I need a whole data base infrastructure of use cases that dont require >> merging.** Such as storing a document.** Saving a note.** Creating a >> profile, and so on. That deviated quickly from a simpler spec (Solid Lite) to new features. Please don't kidnap threads this way. Lite means cutting stuff out. For the current spec I think a filesystem is a very logical and not complex solution, making implementation a lot easier. The whole DB versus FS discussion brings back the blog from Ruben: https://solidlabresearch.github.io/WhatsInAPod/ In the end requiring every small bit of data a separate access list would be technically challenging (but not impossible ofcourse) and very difficult for a consent list UX. Here are some thoughts we had about it: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/solid-do-we-need-little-helpers-sjoerd-van-groning/ https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/solid-different-views-linked-data-sjoerd-van-groning/ I am very interested in feedback on our thoughts about it. We prefer a filesystem. Much easier (especially for Solid Lite). Kind regards, Sjoerd -- Sjoerd van Groning Muze T. 053 - 4308177 | 06 - 41265099 I. www.muze.nl | www.simplyedit.io | www.pdsinterop.org E. sjoerd@muze.nl
Received on Tuesday, 31 October 2023 15:24:46 UTC