On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 1:05 PM, Peter Ansell <ansell.pe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11 April 2015 at 22:24, Reto Gmür <r...@apache.org> wrote: > > Sorry for the delay... > > > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Andy Seaborne <a...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> Project proposals? Pointers please. > >> > > > > From: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ClerezzaProposal > > > > Clerezza provides: > >> > >> - An API modeling the W3C RDF standard without any vendor specific > >> additions. > >> > >> I'm quite certain that the API is the part of clerezza which is most > used. > > > > > >> and you have evolved to something for Clerezza that is not interface > >> based, which, as already commented (no response from you BTW) is a > >> roadblock for some. > > > > I managed to reply on that before my holidays, but just to be clear: > Using > > interfaces is no roadblock for clerezza, its just a question which API > > design is better. Using Blanknode identifiers is likely to be a > roadblock. > > What exactly is it about BlankNode.internalIdentifier that is > incompatible with the Clerezza assumptions? Have you explored ways > that Clerezza could generate such an internalIdentifer just to satisfy > the interface even if, hypothetically, it only internally supports > continuous in-memory BlankNodes, with "==" equality, rather than > ".equals" equality. > There is no "==" equality, the onyl equality that matters is node1.equals(node2), internally this can be done comparing a string identifier. That's also why constant memory parsers are also possible without exposing the identifier in the public API. > > Rather than refer to the discussion points as FUD, which is extremely > prejudicial to an extended conversation, it would be useful to provide > examples yourself and politely request examples for other points you > do not quite understand yet, to show good faith in the process. > I certainly didn't mean to be impolite. There is the statement from Andy: There was a point about scalability as well. I think I wasn't unfriendly when I wrote that I do not know what he is referring to. I think it should be the one making such a negative assertion about another project to provide some support or examples sustaining the claim. I my opinion it is prejudicial to a conversation to make an unsupported negative claim or to spread rumors, and not pointing out that this is FUD as long as it is not backed by an argument. Cheers, Reto
