----- Original message ----- > > On 10 May 2011, at 14:44, Reto Bachmann-Gmuer wrote: > > > > > For cached graphs I suggest to have uirs like: > > > > urn:x-localinstance:/cache/<remote-uri> > > -1 > > Should each user who makes a request not get a different remote graph? No, this would increase complexity too much. What is in the cache depens solely on the platform instance. If a user want to retrieve something with her identity she cannot use webproxy.
> Because what if a remote instance returns different graphs to different > users for the same resource? > > Btw, I also opened this discussion in CLEREZZA-489 [1] > > My guess is that the graph management should hide all of this from the > user. > > The user should ask for relative graphs if he wants local ones. Which is a direct access to the cache graph, which is consitent with my proposal above. > > Then if he wants remote graphs he should use the name of the remote > graph he wishes to get. How that remote graph is named interally is not > really important. Which somehow contrasts your -1 above. > If the fetch is done over TCP without cookies or > headers, then presumably all users of the server can view that graph > equally. If fetching the remote graph requires authentication, then the > graph will be in part determined by who fetched it. > > In the end these graphs should probably just be blank nodes, with > descriptors of how they were fetched. Yes, i a perfect world we have bracketing rdf stores so that graphs can be anonymously within others. But till then we need a key (name) for our named graph store. If you want to stick to your -1, could you popose an alternative? I really want to do some tidying in the proxy code. Cheers, reto > > Henry > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ > > Social Web Architect > http://bblfish.net/ >
