W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > July 2014

Re: RDF Interface specification

From: Claus Stadler <cstadler@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2014 18:56:08 +0200
Message-ID: <53B58B28.3010301@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
To: semantic-web@w3.org
Hi,

 >> so I guess it should be somehow in line with some of the most wide-spread APIs such as OpenRDF Sesame and Jena

This was exactly our thought on the topic, which led us to design the "JAvasscript Suite for Sparql Access" (Jassa) [1] in the spirit of the Jena API design over the past 2 years.
Jassa provides the core RDF-API + service abstraction (client side pagination, caching, query transformation) + vocabulary abstraction + SPARQL based faceted browsing API,
On top of Jassa we are also building an AngularJS-based UI library which features out-of-the-box SPARQL-based faceted search widgets, typeahead and map visualization[2].

I have yet to investigate if there are any critical differences between the Jassa/Jena interfaces and the RDF Interfaces which would prevent achieving direct interoperability; i.e. whether there are differences which would require transforming all the data from one API to the other. For instance, raw attribute access could be a reason (I am a fan of getters/setters for this reason).

Cheers,
Claus

[1] https://github.com/GeoKnow/Jassa
[2] https://github.com/GeoKnow/Jassa-UI-Angular

Examples of the Jena interfaces and Jassa implementations:
Query Object:
Jena: http://jena.apache.org/documentation/javadoc/arq/com/hp/hpl/jena/query/Query.html
Jassa: https://github.com/GeoKnow/Jassa/blob/master/jassa-js/src/main/webapp/resources/js/sparql/syntax/jena-sparql-elements.js#L1049

RDF Node Object:
Jena: https://jena.apache.org/documentation/javadoc/jena/com/hp/hpl/jena/graph/Node.html
Jassa: https://github.com/GeoKnow/Jassa/blob/master/jassa-js/src/main/webapp/resources/js/rdf/rdf-core.js#L14



On 03.07.2014 11:35, Jakub Kotowski wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> maybe a stupid question but
>
> " The RDF Interfaces Specification defines a set of standardized interfaces for working with RDF data in a programming environment."
>
> so I guess it should be somehow in line with some of the most wide-spread APIs such as OpenRDF Sesame and Jena?
>
> Is that the case or why not?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jakub
>
>
> On 03/07/14 09:21, Phil Archer wrote:
>> Adrian, everyone
>>
>> Thanks very much for this. As ever, if we can help we will. The barrier
>> to setting up a chartered WG (i.e. on that can create formal standards)
>> is pretty high, but (I hope) not insurmountable. In essence we need to
>> be sure that sufficient members are committed to participating in the WG
>> and that the spec will be implemented. That means we need:
>>
>> - member support (membership counts);
>> - implementation capacity.
>>
>> Both of which flow from the demands of multiple stakeholders.
>>
>> Now... RDF Interfaces looks like it might be in scope for something I'm
>> trying to cook up. The Data Activity is all about bridging technological
>> communities, making sure that, for example, non-SemWeb people (I know
>> it's hard to believe but there are such people ) can benefit from
>> semantics. In *that* context, I'm trying to find a path towards a WG
>> sometime next year that will help us move from data to APIs, tools,
>> frameworks etc. Markus Lanthaler's work on Hydra is relevant, as is the
>> Linked Data API, Linked Data Fragments and more.
>>
>> So perhaps you can help me to help you.
>>
>> Leaving aside the fact that we're stretched to breaking point in terms
>> of staff availability ... I'm looking for ways in which we could
>> establish something like a Semantic Web (or Linked Data) Access Group -
>> basically a group that defines a bucket full of stuff that means even
>> arch anti-Linked Data people will find useful and attractive. Something
>> that might bring SemWeb closer to Robin Berjon's vision
>> (http://berjon.com/web-2024/). I don't agree with his statements about
>> RDF, of course, but he's far from alone in his thinking.
>>
>> Do you think that might be worth pursuing? And, if so, would RDF
>> Interfaces fit within that??
>>
>> Comments, positive or negative, all welcome.
>>
>> Phil.
>>
>

-- 
Dipl. Inf. Claus Stadler
Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig
Research Group: http://aksw.org/
Workpage & WebID: http://aksw.org/ClausStadler
Phone: +49 341 97-32260
Received on Thursday, 3 July 2014 16:56:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:42:52 UTC