- From: Benjamin Adrian <benjamin.adrian@dfki.de>
- Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 22:39:19 +0200 (CEST)
- To: public-rdfa-wg@w3.org
What I propose, is just to provide the possibility to define the persistence strategy in our API explicitly. e.g., rdf.setPersistence(rdf.IN_MEMORY_PERSISTENCE) rdf.setPersistence(rdf.LOCAL_PERSISTENCE, file) rdf.setPersistence(rdf.REMOTE_PERSISTENCE, url) rdf.getPersistence() // returns one of these three strategies It does not mean, that implementers have to support all three strategies. But it would developers explicate how the RDF data is stored. > RDF Web Applications Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >> ISSUE-93: Should the RDF API support persistent storage? >> >> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/93 > > from the archives: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Nov/0029.html > > ----------------------------------------- This email was sent using SquirrelMail. "Webmail for nuts!" http://squirrelmail.org/
Received on Thursday, 21 April 2011 20:39:42 UTC