- From: Jonas Liljegren <jonas@rit.se>
- Date: 12 Nov 2000 20:18:44 +0100
- To: alberto.reggiori@jrc.it
- Cc: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>, www-rdf-interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
"Alberto Reggiori (vaio)" <alberto.reggiori@jrc.it> writes: > A list of requirements could be the following: > > - specified using IDL interfaces > - bindings into the major languages (Java, Phyton, Perl, C, C++, C# and so on) > - layered - e.g. core, parsing, storing, querying, services and protocols > - support either statement and resource centric views > - be event based > - must support signatures, digests > - possibly have a SOAP interface > - be easy to use and understand for the programmer I think that Wraf ( http://www.ucn.nu/wraf/ ) are in many ways diffrent from other RDF implementations. Interoperability are importent, and that require a common view on how to model a lot of things. There should be common concepts. But what would be the point with identical APIs? Wraf is not a generic RDF library. It's aimed at a very specific implementation style. -- / Jonas Liljegren The Wraf project http://www.uxn.nu/wraf/ Sponsored by http://www.rit.se/
Received on Sunday, 12 November 2000 14:17:55 UTC