Re: where Marmotta should join the LDP specification?

[Andreas Kuckartz <a....@ping.de>]

A mail from the Marmotta mailing list.

That might be something for Apache Stanbol, maybe for a GSoC project ?

Cheers,
Andreas
---

Sergio Fernández:
> Hi,
> 
> in the meeting that we just have at irc (minutes should arrive in
> another mail), we had the discussion about where Marmotta should start
> to implement the LDP hierarchy:
> 
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html#fig-ldpc-types
> 
>   LDP Resource
>     |
>     |-- LDP Binary Resource
>     |
>     |-- LDP RDF Resource
>          |
>          |-- LDP Container
>               |
>               |-- LDP Basic Container
>               |-- LDP Direct Container
>               |-- LDP Indirect Container
> 
> Since the spec says:
> 
>   6.4.4 LDP servers may accept an HTTP POST of non-RDF representations
>         (LDP-BRs) for creation of any kind of resource,
> 
> LDP-BRs ar enot mandatory. I know the "LDP Binary Resource" should be
> easy to implement. But that's not the point for me. For me if about the
> scope of the project. Even in the idea is a bit different, it's somehow
> related with the old way LMF was managing metadata (RDF) and content
> (binaries). And I don't want to open the scope of the project for
> converting Marmotta in a Semantic CMS.
> 
> But since both Jakob and Thomas had different points of view, I may be
> wrong. So I'd like to listen to more opinions about this issue.
> 
> Cheers,
>