On 5/14/07, Chris K Wensel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > the website left me a little confused.
Yeah, I should do some more posting there. > will it let me round-trip > modifications to the backing store? or are there limitations on what can be > written back? It will round trip but this is immature. Expecting an rdflib.Literal to be passed in is not a good idea long term (backend specific). Also saving Lists and Collections is something I'm nor sure about how to do. > > > >> But Sparta looks great. > > > > Don't know much about critical mass on open sourcing stuff. Which > > Sparta features are attractive? I may have them in my development > > code already. For me the lack of caching in Sparta made it a dead > > end. > > > > yeah, can't say if it's useful, but it looked stable enough. > > I'm not sold on a OO mapping from/to RDF exactly. I'm hoping that it will lower the bar for folks who just want to do <fill-in-the-blank> and are not up to speed on RDF. > but it would save some > effort for simple things, but i would love to break out into RDF centric > things if the OO model doesn't support me. but then again, it may be just > sufficient.. As the code matures there are lots of benefits. e.g. when saving: check for OWL restrictions (predicate range etc) -- Phil --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
