W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-ruby@w3.org > September 2003

Re: rubyrdf

From: Dmitry Borodaenko <d.borodaenko@sam-solutions.net>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 15:02:13 +0300
To: RDF-Ruby list <public-rdf-ruby@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20030911120213.GA8227@sam-solutions.net>

Ah, finally some traffic on this list! :)

On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 11:59:04AM -0600, Aredridel wrote:
> > My stuff was always a bit rough,

Yeah, that was one of the reasons I've decided to write my own RDF
storage for Samizdat instead of hacking RubyRdf for my needs: I just
couldn't force myself to lay hands on that code ;-)

> > but I think there is now the basics of an interesting system falling
> > into place: we have query engines, SQL backends, a half-decent RDF
> > parser, etc.  but plenty of room for improvements.

Agreed. One thing in particular I would like to see is decoupling of all
these components and development of a common RDF API for Ruby. And then
have different projects such as RubyRdf, Redland, Samizdat, map to
different parts of this API.

> Yeah -- the code is functioning but ugly. Functioning is what other
> RDF projects often lack in my experience, though.
> 
> I'm not sure as to the state of the SQL support -- I've found
> basicrdf's Graph#toSQL, but dumping the entire graph from memory to
> SQL as fresh insert statements seems counterproductive to me.  Am I
> missing a greater part of the interface?
> 
> I've not made heads nor tails of RDF4R yet -- just the basicrdf
> library.  I'm planning to run the whole thing through rbbr and rdoc
> and browse a little more intelligently than my survey so far.  All I
> know is that my sixth sense for what project is most promising says
> "RubyRdf". <wry grin goes here>

Hm, why don't you take a look into Samizdat then? It doesn't need rbbr
to grasp: the whole storage module is less than 500 lines :)

And it is functioning (being the basis for a real project), and its SQL
support is fairly advanced (being the core of the RDF storage).

> > I'd be very happy to collaborate with you on this, anyway. Re
> > alternate backends, I've had MySQL working OK btw., but am generally
> > more focussed on Postgres. SQLLite would be interesting certainly.
> Alright.  For Ruby, using the DBI layer might make the most sense,
> though I'm using SQLite directly at the moment.

In Samizdat, I also use DBI, although, since I develop on Postgres, I'm
using some Postgres-specific constructs. I know that it won't be
possible to port it to MySQL (triggers, transactions, and subqueries),
but I don't know enough about SQLite to check what may be missing there.

> > Dave Beckett's redland is now quite nicely packaged with Ruby
> > wrappers, so there is work we could do there too. So many things to
> > do, so little time... ;)
> There's plenty to do there.  I compiled redland and the ruby module
> the other day, and was less than impressed by the API.  It's about as
> un-ruby as one can get -- it's basically the C API wrapped into Ruby,
> hardly object-oriented.  It might be okay to /use/, but extending it
> in Ruby isn't going to fly without some major wrapping of the core
> API. I'd love to see the API reworked into a proper Ruby module, with
> all the namespaces sorted out and planned support for inheritance
> added.

I think first we need to agree on what common RDF API for Ruby should
look like?

-- 
Dmitry Borodaenko
Received on Thursday, 11 September 2003 08:03:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:15:22 GMT