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, >
