- From: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
- Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 18:01:53 +0100
- To: public-rdf-star@w3.org
On 15/08/2020 17:15, thomas lörtsch wrote:
> Thanks for all responses, corrections and additions and an accordingly updated list:
>
>
> SA PG Implementation Notes - Documentation
>
> + AllegroGraph in the works - https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star/2020Aug/0021.html
> x AnzoGraph https://docs.cambridgesemantics.com/anzograph/v2.2/userdoc/lpgs.htm?Highlight=rdf
> x BlazeGraph https://github.com/blazegraph/database/wiki/Reification_Done_Right
> x GraphDB http://graphdb.ontotext.com/documentation/9.2/free/devhub/rdf-sparql-star.html
> x Jena https://jena.apache.org/documentation/rdfstar/
> + + N3 deferred - https://github.com/w3c/N3/issues/27#issuecomment-644768502
> x rdf4j https://rdf4j.org/documentation/programming/rdfstar/
> x + rdfjs/N3.js PG may become configurable soon - https://github.com/rdfjs/data-model-spec/pull/165
> x x RubyRDF http://rdf.greggkellogg.net/yard/file.rdf-README.html#rdf-rdfstar
> x Stardog https://www.stardog.com/docs/#_edge_properties
>
>
>
> I see a tendency towards PG mode. Comments from SA implementers suggested that they chose this approach also because going from SA to PG is easier than the other way round. Also some PG implementers don’t seem to be particularily enthused about SA mode.
Great survey!
Of the PG systems, how many:
(1) Implement <<>> in the object position
(2) Provide cascading deletion
in their current releases?
Andy
>
> Thomas
>
>
>> On 10. Aug 2020, at 21:41, Steve Sarsfield <steve.sarsfield@cambridgesemantics.com> wrote:
>>
>> Confirming that for AnzoGraph DB, this chart is correct. We support the property graph style. We don’t currently have any product roadmap planned for separate assertions.
>>
>>
>>
>> Steve Sarsfield, AnzoGraph DB
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Monday, 17 August 2020 17:02:10 UTC