Thanks Andy for the pointer! Having a common set of library solely based on the standard would indeed be great, and indeed what clerezza rdf.core aims too.
I have been planning to suggest some changes for rdf.core (after the release I plan to push forward after my holidays in around two weeks). I don't think that many changes are needed for RDF 1.1 but some changes should be made to make the API more easy to understand and more consistent with commonly use terms (at expenses of strict conformance with terms used in spec). Mainly some renaming and simplification: - UriRef -> Iri - LockableMGraph / MGraph /TripleCollection -> Graph (with the identity criterion defined as in MGraph) - Graph -> ImmutableGraph (with the current isomorphic == equals identity criterion) - TcProvider -> DataSet (adding a default graph) An important design requirement that rdf.core imho must keep satisfying is that it's suitable to wrap any data (even very large) and expose it using the RDF. This requirement excludes introducing things like blank node IDs. Cheers, Reto On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Minto van der Sluis <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Andy, > > This is very very interesting. > > I have been thinking about something similar the last few months. My > idea was to take part of Clerezza (rdf.core) as a base to try and make > it a java standard through the Java Community Process (jcp.org). Hoping > to increase adoption and boost the creation supporting tools. > > IMO this makes it possible to separate RDF tools from specific RDF > solutions. > > How can I join in? > > Regards, > > Minto > > > Andy Seaborne schreef op 11-6-2014 21:39: > > Hi there, > > > > There is some discussion starting up at > > > > https://github.com/wikier/commons-rdf/blob/master/README.md > > > > on a small set of compatibility interfaces for RDF 1.1 concepts. > > > > Andy > > > -- > ir. ing. Minto van der Sluis > Software innovator / renovator > Xup BV > > Mobiel: +31 (0) 626 014541 > >
