- From: Seaborne, Andy <Andy_Seaborne@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 15:56:22 +0100
- To: "'SIMILE public list'" <www-rdf-dspace@w3.org>
At one level "client" is any system that uses another, at another level, it
is something on the end users machine and also it is the software that is
the UI.
I don't see use of SIMILE to be purely a browse/interactive use pattern
(IMHO the Semantic Web isn't about such usage patterns). The data from
SIMILE may be being used by another service or a system that is agent-like
on the client, it may be portal of some kind. SIMILE "publishes" so it does
not know what use will be made of the information provided; peer-like,
client application-like, other. There are likely to be HTML-generating ways
into SIMILE, and initially these are going to be important routes in, but
there should also be programmatic access for non-browser systems. A goo
ddesign is then one where the HTML-generating route is just servics that use
the programmatic route.
This may not be the same relationship as SIMILE system - SIMILE system where
there may be a trusted relationship or a design exchange of information. It
would be desirable to use the same technology but we should not assume that
is so.
Andy
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Smathers [mailto:ks@micky.hpl.hp.com]
> Sent: 7 April 2003 20:12
> To: John S. Erickson
> Cc: www-rdf-dspace@w3.org
> Subject: Re: SIMILE Research Drivers
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 07, 2003 at 12:54:54PM -0400, John S. Erickson wrote:
> >
> > Kevin asks:
> > > So the question I am left with is: why do you think
> > > that Simile clients should not be limited to web browsers?
> >
> > Well, for one thing, the Haystack client is not technically
> a "web browser"
> >
>
> I agree of course.
>
> Still this is the first suggestion I've seen that the Haystack
> client would be used with Simile. My impression was rather that
> the Haystack UI would be ported, minus the client, using a Web UI
> interface.
>
> > I think that we need to accomodate virtualization of the
> storage that the
> > client interacts with. This storage should be assumed to be highly
> > distributed, and will include resources that are locally
> stored (relative to
> > the user). The purpose for this localization might be for
> performance reasons,
> > and/or because the user's activity simply suggests that
> being "close" to the
> > physical context makes the most sense.
> >
> > There could be reasons of control as well --- the
> user/client might be
> > modifying a set of resources and thus (a) has a local copy
> and (b) causes a
> > "lock" on "server" copies.
>
> This is an interesting idea, but as the client code won't be
> under the
> control of the user, it seems impractical to require that
> virtualization
> happen at the client/server interface rather than at the server/server
> interface.
>
> If I'm wrong and client code /is/ intended to be run by the
> user directly
> then a client library that can span multiple repositories takes on a
> greater significance, as well as implying the need for a
> corresponding
> web-service API on the server end. This, assuming that DSpace hosts
> aren't likely to want to expose the RDF database layer
> directly to their
> non-local clients.
>
> I would suggest that there is little need for that style of
> interaction
> with the Simile server however. The distribution use cases for Simile
> (Shared Collections, Open Courseware) seem to rest on data
> sharing at the
> peer level rather than at the client level.
>
> Cheers,
> -kls
> --
> ========================================================
> Kevin Smathers kevin.smathers@hp.com
> Hewlett-Packard kevin@ank.com
> Palo Alto Research Lab
> 1501 Page Mill Rd. 650-857-4477 work
> M/S 1135 650-852-8186 fax
> Palo Alto, CA 94304 510-247-1031 home
> ========================================================
> use "Standard::Disclaimer";
> carp("This message was printed on 100% recycled bits.");
>
Received on Tuesday, 8 April 2003 10:56:43 UTC