- From: <uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com>
- Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2000 14:00:08 -0700
- To: Stefan Haustein <stefan.haustein@trantor.de>
- cc: rdf-interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
> Hello! > > I would like to make a suggestion for improvement of the SiRPAC API. In > my opinion, the parsing process and the RDF data model should be two > clearly sperated layers, similar to SAX and DOM. Currently, SiRPAC > always builds its own internal model, even if I register my own > RDFConsumer. > > A cleaner approach could be to have a parser and a sparate model > builder. The model builder could get the parsing events by registering > itself to a parser. > > Further problems I have with SiRPAC are: [snip] > 2. RDFnode should be renamed to RDFNode for consistency. [snip] Actually, there is no reason for the "RDF" prefix at all. It is already in package "rdf", and that is all the dismbiguation that should be needed. It should just be called "Node". I too looked to the SiRPAC effort, in my case to try to re-use an existing interface for RDF, but I disliked their interface so much that we're rolling our own for our Python RDF processor. As soon as I have time, I'll post the whole catalog of problems I have with the SiRPAC folks' proposed standard RDF interface. -- Uche Ogbuji FourThought LLC, IT Consultants uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com (970)481-0805 Software engineering, project management, Intranets and Extranets http://FourThought.com http://OpenTechnology.org
Received on Monday, 3 January 2000 16:00:17 UTC