W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-ruby@w3.org > February 2008


From: Jack Rusher <jack@rusher.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 10:15:04 -0500
Message-Id: <222FB1D6-A8E4-4F43-8C2F-86385F9F78E3@rusher.com>
To: public-rdf-ruby@w3.org

   Things have been disappointingly quiet since this went out:

On 10 Feb, 2008, at 23:36, cdr wrote:
> 1: abstract-concept orientation
> Triples, Resources, Nodes, Graphs are the main object classes.
> 2: RDF schema / class-orientation
> RDF provides the notion of a 'Class' of resources. these resources  
> can be subclasses of others, and so on. this is largely overlapping  
> with the popular OO programming topology.
> 3: one class to rule them all (jQuery style)
> 4. RDF _is_ the language
> N3 hints at this. a syntax approaching python, a notion of  
> 'functions' and basic operators like equality.

... do we lack preferences here?

   As for pure Ruby vs C library, I'm not enormously concerned about  
which approach is taken.  If we build something in Ruby that turns  
out to be too slow for my personal projects, I'll whip up a C library  
that uses the same interface.

   Another question: are we, in the first pass, more concerned with  
making it easier to do network queries against remote SPARQL  
endpoints or providing infrastructure for local RDF stores?  Most of  
my current use cases are of the latter variety, but I see much  
opportunity for mash-up goodness using the former.


Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2008 15:15:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:02:13 UTC