Thanks for your interest, Gustavo. Your proposal looks fine. I've made minor comments on the document.
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 4:22 AM, Gustavo Mora <gmora1...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 <ansell.pe...@gmail.com>: > > > 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 <gmora1...@gmail.com> 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. > > > -- Sergio Fernández Partner Technology Manager Redlink GmbH m: +43 6602747925 e: sergio.fernan...@redlink.co w: http://redlink.co
