W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > November 2000

Re: RDF API convergence? was Re: ANNOUNCE: RDF.NET

From: Alberto Reggiori <alberto.reggiori@jrc.it>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 20:07:20 +0100
Message-ID: <3A103BE8.ABA848CC@jrc.it>
To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
CC: www-rdf-interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>


> SWIG allowed me to mechanically generated interfaces in Python and
> Perl and just works.  A really useful tool.  In the long term I could
> see generating such interfaces from *an* IDL, not necessarily IDL, if
> that makes sense.

I quickly looked at SWIG in the past, but I preferred to hack the Makefile by
at the end :-) I think it is a really useful piece of software and it could be

used for expressing application semantics in much more practical way then IDL.

Can one read/write IDL with SWIG?

> > - support either statement and resource centric views
> > - be event based
> Reacting to events?  Generating RDF/SAX events from parsing?

both. I think it would be nice to specify in some document which parsing
a program need to implement and which other events to listen to.

> > - possibly have a SOAP interface
> SOAP interface - to what level?  Do you mean a general RPC interface,
> maybe in SOAP, CORBA, XML-RPC, K-Parts, ...?

I was not talking about a general RPC interface, but about the possibility to
make it with SOAP :-)

> > - be easy to use and understand for the programmer
> I humbly suggest Redland satisfies many of these [can't comment on
> the last one].  I'm still coding and open to suggestions and
> especially help!

I think so, but we all end up to write most the same code in different
way in our tools. It would be nice to have a common model to map between them.


Received on Monday, 13 November 2000 13:55:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:33 UTC