Hi Andy,
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 7:43 PM, Andy Seaborne <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 16/04/15 16:54, Sergio Fernández wrote:
>>
>> * The big issue remains with blank nodes. For me it's fine to go out with
>> an api defining a simple contract, then is up to each implementation to
>> take care of special details. That means we shift COMMONSRDF-6 and
>> COMMONSRDF-14 to version 0.2.
>>
>
> +1 (go as is) for blank nodes
>
> +0 for IRI and literals : ideally, define hashcode and equals as default
> methods based on getters. Not a blocker.
>
> (This is saying IRI and literals can pass between implementations, blank
> nodes do not provide the necessary guarantees in 0.1.)
Understand.
>
> * I guess immutability requires further discussion, so also
>> shifting COMMONSRDF-7 to 0.2.
>>
>
> OK (the issue seems to mix contract requirements and implementation,
> though any likely implementation has not very much room for manoeuvre as
> far as I can see)
The question is: can we keep it as it it for 0.1 and work on it for the
next version/s?
> * Current version of the simple implementation is enough for testing the
>> api and showing some ideas to actual implementators.
>>
>
> OK - other than "simple" is becoming a misnomer!
I do agree. We can try to find a better name... actually the description
states: "Simple (if not naive) implementation of Commons RDF API" xD
You know that my goal was always to trust on Jena and Sesame as real
implementations. So whatever name summarizes that idea would be fine.
> In addition I'm working to get the site up (see INFRA-9260 for details),
>> but I'm confident to find a solution with the infra people in the next few
>> days.
>>
>
> Great - I think this is a blocker for a release, or at least announcing it.
Yes, I know, working on it...
> (*) with 0.1 I generically refer to both commons-rdf-api-0.1-incubating
>> and commons-rdf-simple-0.1.0-incubating artifacts
>>
>
> This is the right naming scheme but the new POMs disagree and have
>
> commons-rdf-api-incubating-0.1
>
> ("-incubating" in the artifact name, not the version)
>
> I guess that was not intended?
>
No, my mistake. Already fixed in the HEAD of our repository.
Cheers,
--
Sergio Fernández
Partner Technology Manager
Redlink GmbH
m: +43 6602747925
e: [email protected]
w: http://redlink.co
