W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-ruby@w3.org > April 2010

Re: raptor

From: Arto Bendiken <arto.bendiken@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 03:21:03 +0200
Message-ID: <l2m47fe11b71004041821r40796ad9l2b02b55dd370ec1b@mail.gmail.com>
To: carmen <_@whats-your.name>
Cc: public-rdf-ruby@w3.org
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 2:41 AM, carmen <_@whats-your.name> wrote:
> main issue is the name. RDF as a prefix sounds pretty canonical, like the officially 'approved' library
>
> surely the officially approved way to use Raptor wouldnt entail parsing and serializing 3 times instead of one due to a design choice.
>
> when someone comes along and writes RDF-Raptor (as opposed to RDF-Rapper) say using redlead or dajobe's bindings, what will they name it?

Short answer: I guess it's only been ten years as yet.

PS. RDF::Raptor 0.2.0, released yesterday, included an initial set of
FFI bindings to Raptor, as well as RDF::Reader implementations based
on both CLI and FFI. Successfully tested in Ruby 1.8.x, 1.9.x and
JRuby 1.4.0. Your contributions in further improving the FFI bindings
and helping make this the definitive, canonical Raptor gem for Ruby
would be welcomed.

-- 
Arto Bendiken | http://ar.to/
Received on Monday, 5 April 2010 01:21:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 5 April 2010 01:21:39 GMT