[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COMMONSRDF-46?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15615039#comment-15615039
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on COMMONSRDF-46:
------------------------------------------
Github user stain commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-commonsrdf/pull/25#discussion_r85507044
--- Diff: api/src/main/java/org/apache/commons/rdf/api/BlankNodeOrIRI.java
---
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@
/**
* This interface represents the {@link RDFTerm}s that may be used in the
- * subject position of an RDF-1.1 {@link Triple}, including {@link
BlankNode}
+ * subject position of an RDF-1.1 {@link Triple}, that is {@link BlankNode}
--- End diff --
"either" is stronger - meaning that we say they are distinct. (Which I
think they are)
if you agree we can then also say in `RDFTerm` that it also must be a
`IRI`, `BlankNode` or `Literal`. Perhaps using _SHOULD_ so that evil people
can still make their `SparqlVariable` if they so wish - knowing well that this
would break various stuff.
In `RDFTerm` I added:
* Instances of RDFTerm SHOULD be an {@link IRI}, {@link BlankNode} or
* {@link Literal}.
and in `BlankNodeOrIRI`:
> * Instances of BlankNodeOrIRI SHOULD be a {@link BlankNode} or an {@link
IRI}.
> Rename RDFTermFactory to RDF
> ----------------------------
>
> Key: COMMONSRDF-46
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COMMONSRDF-46
> Project: Apache Commons RDF
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: api
> Reporter: Stian Soiland-Reyes
> Assignee: Stian Soiland-Reyes
> Fix For: 0.3.0
>
>
> As [mentioned on
> dev@commons|https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ff9f0eda82a70fea38bd46781a062d182cd7792aee57a4563f854b27@%3Cdev.commonsrdf.apache.org%3E],
> the {{RDFTermFactory}} will grow in 0.3.0 to include {{Dataset}} and
> {{Quad}} creation, which are not {{RDFTerm}} instances.
> As well, the new implementations of RDFTermFactory for Jena and RDF4J also
> include converter methods from/to their underlying types - which feel
> somewhat wrong in a "factory" as they may are free to wrap/unwrap rather than
> make new instances.
> So the suggestion is a radical style change - rename {{RDFTermFactory}} to
> {{RDF}}, and its children to {{SimpleRDF}} {{JenaRDF}}, {{RDF4J}},
> {{JsonLDRDF}}.
> Typical usage then looks pretty neat:
> {code}
> RDF rdf = new JenaRDF();
> IRI iri = rdf.createIRI("http://example.com/";);
> Triple triple = rdf.createTriple(iri, iri, iri);
> Graph graph = rdf.createGraph();
> graph.add(triple);
> {code}
> but works less well as a static constant {{RDF}}:
> {code}
> private static final RDF RDF = new JenaRDF();
> {code}
> (before {{FACTORY}} might have made sense)
> Some style considerations:
> * {{RDF4JRDF}} looks weird, so just {{RDF4J}} there
> * {{SimpleRDF}} looks good (as Simple does not exists outside Commons RDF)
> * Jena already have
> [org.apache.jena](https://jena.apache.org/documentation/javadoc/jena/org/apache/jena/Jena.html),
> so {{JenaRDF}} is better than another {{Jena}}
> * {{JsonLdRDF}}
> * Documentation about just {{RDF}} the interface can be confusing against
> _RDF_ the concept, requiring using {{<code>}}-style typography and expanded
> phrases like "an {{RDF}} implementation" instead of "an {{RDF}}"
> A milder variant is: {{RDFFactory}} with children {{SimpleRDFFactory}},
> {{JenaFactory}}, {{RDF4JFactory}}. {{JsonLDFactory}} -- here we can skip
> {{RDF}} from the children except from the newbie {{Simple}}.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
