On 02 Dec 2013, at 15:22 , Richard Light <rich...@light.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > On 02/12/2013 11:10, Karl Dubost wrote: >> Le 2 déc. 2013 à 06:00, Richard Light <rich...@light.demon.co.uk> >> a écrit : >> >>> By this, I mean "an application programming interface (API) for [RDF >>> graphs]", which will be "a standard programming interface that can be used >>> in a wide variety of environments and applications. >>> >> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-api/ > Why did it die? Lack of interest:-( There were no real uptake in the idea neither by users nor by implementers. It really was heading for a paper-only specification. It seems that this direction was not what the community wanted at large. One possible reason may be what Tim said: an abstract, language-independent interface may not fly, and one would have to define an interface in Python, Javascript, C, C++, Scala, Java, ... Personally, I know Python the best, and the DOM analogy is indeed significant: although DOM based interfaces to XML in Python still exist (and the minidom is still part of the standard distribution), it seems that more Python-like interfaces like ElementTree are closer to what developers want. (Having used both minidom and ElementTree I have sympathy with that, actually.) Ivan > > Richard >> >> >> > > -- > Richard Light ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 GPG: 0x343F1A3D FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
