Re: ISSUE-93: Should the RDF API support persistent storage?

Hi Benjamin,

This could be a different approaches kind of thing, rather than having 
everything implemented and hidden by a core interface you access via 
RDF, I'd very much been viewing it as defining the minimum requirements 
for each interface, then allowing implementations to add whatever 
features they wanted.

Practically speaking this would allow the following approaches:

  var g = new PersistentGraph;

or
  var g = lib.getGraph(url);

or
  var g = lib.getPersistence();

or
  store.persist(g);

Which seemed a little more flexible, whilst maintaining interop.

Best,

Nathan

Benjamin Adrian wrote:
> What I propose, is just to provide the possibility to define
> the persistence strategy in our API explicitly.
> 
> e.g.,
> rdf.setPersistence(rdf.IN_MEMORY_PERSISTENCE)
> rdf.setPersistence(rdf.LOCAL_PERSISTENCE, file)
> rdf.setPersistence(rdf.REMOTE_PERSISTENCE, url)
> 
> rdf.getPersistence() // returns one of these three strategies
> 
> It does not mean, that implementers have to support all three strategies.
> But it would developers explicate how the RDF data is stored.
> 
> 
>> RDF Web Applications Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>>> ISSUE-93: Should the RDF API support persistent storage?
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/93
>> from the archives:
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Nov/0029.html
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------
> This email was sent using SquirrelMail.
>    "Webmail for nuts!"
> http://squirrelmail.org/
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 21 April 2011 22:15:56 UTC