elf-pavlik
commented
2 years ago After discussing it during our meeting and thinking about it further. While adding an explicit reference to LDP Container, rather than having Data Registration itself being that container, adds some flexibility. It also adds some complexity. With this change, whenever we create a new Data Registration we MUST provide a link to LDP Container. In most cases, the user wouldn't want to be bothered to specify or create a new container for each new data registration. As we consider this change we should consider the following:
Each Data Registry would require interop:defaultRootContainer which would be an LDP Container in which by default a new LDP Container gets automatically created for each new Data Registration in that Data Registry.
Creating a new Data Registry happens on a few occasions (per user) so adding some extra burden here seems fine. Creating new Data Registrations will happen much more often so we should keep as frictionless as we can.
I think this approach can give us a nice balance between flexibility and putting the burden on users.
woutermont
From the definition of the Data Registration, it would seem that the registration itself is the container in which its shapetree-adhering instances are stored. After all, it has a number of metadata predicates (relevant agents, timestamps etc.), but none that points to a container.
Am I right in this assessment, and (if so) why is that the case?
It seems to preclude a division of responsibility, e.g., where I keep my registration metadata on one host, and have it point to my data on another. At first I thought maybe the idea is to have the RS use it for knowing which shapetree a container has to adhere to, but then this would seem to conflict with the idea of "planting trees" from the ShapeTrees spec.