Thanks Peter for your answer, I really appreciate, I considered some things
you mentioned into my proposal. I'd really appreciate if you can review it
and share some thoughts in order to improve it.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oql-LqxpAeTXHVp_2GEj-69yzKVkw0q_LuOoP7aVG9s/edit?usp=sharing

Regards,
Gustavo.

2017-03-28 21:28 GMT-05:00 Peter Ansell <[email protected]>:

> Hi Gustavo,
>
> One major compatibility issue will be the use of
> "if(Literal.getLanguage() != null)" in any current code, and if a
> language tag exists, "Literal.getDatatype()" will now return
> rdf:langString so you need to make sure that you check for
> "getLanguage().isPresent()" before checking datatypes. You will be
> able to pick up most of the getLanguage() != null cases by checking
> compiler errors.
>
> The other incompatibility will be that because Literal.getDatatype no
> longer ever returns null, you will need to work on a database
> migration strategy for existing Literal instances that have null, and
> replace them with xsd:string if the language is missing, and
> rdf:langString if the language exists.
>
> URI and IRI are interchangeable in terms of RDF4J.
>
> A fuller migration guide is at:
>
> http://docs.rdf4j.org/migration/
>
> You may want to split up the migration into steps, by stepping up to
> Sesame-2.8 first to pick up the getDatatype() != null cases first,
> then go to Sesame-4 to pick up the getLanguage() != null cases, before
> going to RDF4J with what are virtually all package name changes.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Peter
>
>
> On 29 March 2017 at 12:12, Gustavo Mora <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Dear,
> >
> > I'm a student of Computer Science, and I'm working on my application to
> > GSOC 2017, but I have some questions. BTW, I also compiled the code and
> > started playing with it. Firstly, there's a plan to migrate because there
> > are some classes that have replacements; for example, IRI instead of URI,
> > changes in some interfaces/classes names, use of optional, etc. Also,
> some
> > tests will fail because RDF4J stores a default string as literal, for
> > example. If we changed that, the next release is not going to have
> > compatibility with the previous ones? If yes, Is it necessary to maintain
> > some deprecated code? What other problems can I encounter in KiWi and
> > platform?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Gustavo Mora.
>

Reply via email to