I have appended my comments to the tracker item. In short, I believe
a custom implementation will help you to manage RDF internally and
help resolve the dependencies you are currently bound to, but this
should not be looked at to provide useful RDF interfaces for reading
and writing specific types of metadata; the most obvious implication
of that is you would also need to write an RDF Schema library also.
So the public API considered here may be very small - consume or
produce triples.
cheers
Matt
On 1/05/2008, at 9:49 PM, David Nickerson wrote:
Hi Justin,
As I mentioned on the tracker item, it would be really good if you
could
put together a proposal (perhaps as a document under your cellml.org
member page) which describes exactly what it is you are proposing
here.
Something along the lines of what Andrew presented when putting
forward
the proposed refactoring of the code generation service. I'm really
not
sure how a RDF parsing service on its own is going to help meet the
goals you describe.
I am also wondering exactly what you mean by an intermediate
conclusion?
Thanks,
Andre.
Justin Marsh wrote:
Hi all,
For those who may be interested, there has been some discussion
amongst
those involved with the CellML API recently about a proposed
addition of
an CellML API side RDF parsing service; this would, for example,
allow
us to remove our dependency on patching Mozilla, allowing us to build
PCEnv from an unmodified build of the Mozilla framework. The
discussion
has moved over to tracker item 358
( https://tracker.physiomeproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=358 )
Other reasons for such an addition have been for use in any future
metadata service, the increasing use of rdf, and for use in
annotating
systems of equations.
Reasons against such an addition have included the availability of
preexisting libraries, the possibility of scope creep, the
possibility
of introducing changes or dependencies in the existing CellML API,
the
broadness of the current proposal, and a possible conceptual
uncleanness
or incorrectness.
I would appreciate any feedback, comments about, or refinements of
this;
however, unless the discussion is still raging, we want to come to at
least an intermediate conclusion by Friday the 9th of May.
Best Regards,
Justin Marsh
___
cellml-discussion mailing list
cellml-discussion@cellml.org
http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
___
cellml-discussion mailing list
cellml-discussion@cellml.org
http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
___
cellml-discussion mailing list
cellml-discussion@cellml.org
http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
