On 11/01/2011 04:41 PM, Markus Krötzsch wrote:
> On 31/10/11 19:17, Samuel Lampa wrote:
>> The only little caution I'd like to make, is that the decision keeping
>> data objects atomic makes them follow the Anemic Model antipattern [1] a
>> bit. But that is of course a question about model design a
On 31/10/11 19:17, Samuel Lampa wrote:
> On 10/31/2011 07:55 PM, Markus Krötzsch wrote:
>> On 31/10/11 18:13, Samuel Lampa wrote:
>>> On 10/31/2011 06:52 PM, Samuel Lampa wrote:
=== Q2: Status of SMWData/SMWDataItem as API? ===
Also I wondered what status the SMWData/SMWDataItem clas
On 11/01/2011 04:26 PM, Markus Krötzsch wrote:
>> Overall, though, I think, supporting full roundtrip of SMW<->RDF data
>> structures, is indeed interesting, and would enable a whole bunch of new
>> use cases ...
>
> Fully reliable round-tripping won't be possible when considering single
> entities
On 31/10/11 19:20, Samuel Lampa wrote:
> On 10/31/2011 07:43 PM, Markus Krötzsch wrote:
>> The extension of this code would make sense in SMW. One could also
>> imagine that this is later used for importing SPARQL results into SMW
>> data for general forms of SPARQL queries.
>
> I'm not sure I foll
On 10/31/2011 07:43 PM, Markus Krötzsch wrote:
> The extension of this code would make sense in SMW. One could also
> imagine that this is later used for importing SPARQL results into SMW
> data for general forms of SPARQL queries.
I'm not sure I followed this part:
"importing SPARQL results into
On 10/31/2011 07:55 PM, Markus Krötzsch wrote:
> On 31/10/11 18:13, Samuel Lampa wrote:
>> On 10/31/2011 06:52 PM, Samuel Lampa wrote:
>>> === Q2: Status of SMWData/SMWDataItem as API? ===
>>>
>>> Also I wondered what status the SMWData/SMWDataItem classes are supposed
>>> to have, as a general API
On 31/10/11 18:13, Samuel Lampa wrote:
> On 10/31/2011 06:52 PM, Samuel Lampa wrote:
>> === Q2: Status of SMWData/SMWDataItem as API? ===
>>
>> Also I wondered what status the SMWData/SMWDataItem classes are supposed
>> to have, as a general API? ... Are they the supposed API, or is SMW
>> going to
On 31/10/11 17:52, Samuel Lampa wrote:
> On 09/25/2011 11:05 AM, Markus Krötzsch wrote:
>> RDF data is represented by a smaller set of classes under SMWExpElement.
>> These classes represent triples for the purpose of serialisation (they
>> abstract RDF before fixing a concrete syntax such as RDF/X
On 10/31/2011 07:13 PM, Samuel Lampa wrote:
> (which would not need to be required, for data that has no
> counterpart in the outside world,
I mean, these "Original URI" fields would not be required to be filled.
(Sorry for the possible confusion)
// Samuel
--
Samuel Lampa
On 10/31/2011 06:52 PM, Samuel Lampa wrote:
> === Q2: Status of SMWData/SMWDataItem as API? ===
>
> Also I wondered what status the SMWData/SMWDataItem classes are supposed
> to have, as a general API? ... Are they the supposed API, or is SMW
> going towards preferring to talk SPARQL with all exten
On 09/25/2011 11:05 AM, Markus Krötzsch wrote:
> RDF data is represented by a smaller set of classes under SMWExpElement.
> These classes represent triples for the purpose of serialisation (they
> abstract RDF before fixing a concrete syntax such as RDF/XML or Turtle).
Got two questions:
=== Q1:
On 09/25/2011 11:05 AM, Markus Krötzsch wrote:
>
>>
>> I'd love to have a shortlist of the foundational classes I need to know
>> to represent triple data with SMW classes ... Should I basically be fine
>> with SMWDataItems (elements) and SMWSemanticData (aggregates of facts
>> per subject)? ... or
On 25/09/11 05:18, Samuel Lampa wrote:
> Sorry for repeating this, but wanted to remind about the need to update
> the rest of the Architecture Overview article [1]. I guess that even
> just updating the text that is there (there are two sections not updated
> to 1.6) would go a long way?
>
> The p
+1 for continuing the Architecture Guide.
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 8:18 AM, Samuel Lampa wrote:
> Sorry for repeating this, but wanted to remind about the need to update
> the rest of the Architecture Overview article [1]. I guess that even
> just updating the text that is there (there are two sec
Sorry for repeating this, but wanted to remind about the need to update
the rest of the Architecture Overview article [1]. I guess that even
just updating the text that is there (there are two sections not updated
to 1.6) would go a long way?
The problem now is that even parts supposed to be up
15 matches
Mail list logo
