- From: Arto Bendiken <arto.bendiken@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 03:21:03 +0200
- To: carmen <_@whats-your.name>
- Cc: public-rdf-ruby@w3.org
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 2:41 AM, carmen <_@whats-your.name> wrote: > main issue is the name. RDF as a prefix sounds pretty canonical, like the officially 'approved' library > > surely the officially approved way to use Raptor wouldnt entail parsing and serializing 3 times instead of one due to a design choice. > > when someone comes along and writes RDF-Raptor (as opposed to RDF-Rapper) say using redlead or dajobe's bindings, what will they name it? Short answer: I guess it's only been ten years as yet. PS. RDF::Raptor 0.2.0, released yesterday, included an initial set of FFI bindings to Raptor, as well as RDF::Reader implementations based on both CLI and FFI. Successfully tested in Ruby 1.8.x, 1.9.x and JRuby 1.4.0. Your contributions in further improving the FFI bindings and helping make this the definitive, canonical Raptor gem for Ruby would be welcomed. -- Arto Bendiken | http://ar.to/
Received on Monday, 5 April 2010 01:21:38 UTC