[redland] Re: model vs. triple

[Alberto Reggiori]

Devon Smith wrote:
> 
> I agree that writing my own API is a bad idea.
> but i do think that the existing API's are a little too limiting.
> i also don't have time right now to wait for an API convergence.

Hello Devon

(I hope you do not mind if I cc this message to redland, wraf and eric)

I think writing your API is not too bad but it worries me because there
is a
big risk to duplicate work and make people confusing.
 
> to further the cause of convergence, i will make my API available
> for you, and anyone else, to look at and comment on.
> http://socwww.cwru.edu/~devon/rdf
> this is just the start, so don't hesitate to be critical.
> let me know what you think is missing and what you think needs
> to be added. i can't promise that i'll make all the changes requested
> or that i'll make changes in a timely manner, but i'll definitely
> keep track of them.

I quickly looked through it and looks interesting. But without any
method name/signature
on the classes I can not see very much difference from the
Stanford/RDFStore API. The
only bit added to it seems the Property class to make the api "resource
centric" (ala Jena)
 
I would be interested instead to start a kind of collaborate effort (at
least on the perl side) to implement something together and possibly 
using a more general and flexible model. I am definitively open to
suggestions and concrete proposals like your :-)

A suggestion: do not "pollute" the perl RDF:: package namespace

I will send you more later

Yours

Alberto