FWIW, I wouldn't mind at all seeing (i) the main discussion move to a public list like Tim suggested, (ii) the stuff like the below moving to private email.... On May 14, 2008, at 4:35 PM, Kendall Grant Clark wrote: > Excerpts from Kingsley Idehen's message of Wed May 14 16:08:39 -0400 > 2008: > >> Okay, the JDBC bit is good, and we can easily test Owlgres against >> Virtuoso JDBC. But of course, we end up with the obvious question: >> Why >> are we using JDBC to talk to a DBMS engine equipped with a Quad >> Store? > > I don't know, Kingsley, why are you doing that? We're *not* doing that > presently, so it's not a super interesting question for *us*. YMMV. > >> We've been through this re. recent work relating to new Model >> Providers >> for Sesame, Jena, and Redland (all of which offer SQL DBMS and Graph >> Model persistence APIs). > > Okay, I guess I'm just not clever enough to realize what anything > you all have > been doing with those systems has anything to do with what we're > doing? > >> I am trying to determine if we've ended up with two things that are >> artificially disconnected :-) > > Only under a robust, extensive set of assumptions that I guarantee > "we" do not > share. :> > > Cheers, > Kendall "If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would it?." - Albert Einstein Prof James Hendler http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler Tetherless World Constellation Chair Computer Science Dept Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180Received on Wednesday, 14 May 2008 20:51:24 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 14 May 2008 20:51:27 GMT