Re: semantic web tools in a shared hosting environment

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