- From: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 16:45:50 -0400
- To: "Johnson, Matthew C. (LNG-ALB)" <Matthew.C.Johnson@lexisnexis.com>
- Cc: <semantic-web@w3.org>
Received on Friday, 14 March 2008 20:46:24 UTC
On Mar 14, 2008, at 4:12 PM, Johnson, Matthew C. (LNG-ALB) wrote: > Can anyone give comments on RDF::Core vs. RDF::Redland vs. RDF::Trine? > What is the strength/weakness of each? I've looked at each in the > past > (except perhaps RDF::Trine) and I suspect that Redland is more "full > featured" but am not completely sure if this is right. Is there a > reason to use one vs. the other? Note that I'm not trying to slam any > particular product here...just trying to learn what is useful in > practice. Thanks. Redland is without a doubt the most stable and standards compliant backend. The perl bindings work really well, and it's probably the best option for now. RDF::Trine is my own backend that I've been attempting to design with query execution in mind (for example, it can compile basic graph patterns from a SPARQL query down to a single SQL statement for the underlying database, something that neither of the other two backends can do at the moment). I'm not a huge fan of RDF::Core as it has some issues that prevent total compliance with the SPARQL spec, but it is the simplest backend with the fewest dependencies. Hope that helps. thanks, .greg
Received on Friday, 14 March 2008 20:46:24 UTC