On 07/04/16 14:06, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
Good point about base class equality.
However we have the luxury of using interfaces and knowing existence of the
Quad interface from Triple in advance. (We don't need to support Quint or
Sixt, and implementations of T/Q can choose freely if their im
Good point about base class equality.
However we have the luxury of using interfaces and knowing existence of the
Quad interface from Triple in advance. (We don't need to support Quint or
Sixt, and implementations of T/Q can choose freely if their implementations
are subclasses or not - we have al
On 06/04/16 18:44, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
Right, different .equals.. And I don't think we would want to have
hierarchical .equals as you show, that could lead to weird collection
behaviour. Also the Quad should probably include the Graph IRI in its
.hashCode()
It's not specific to RDF. It'
Right, different .equals.. And I don't think we would want to have
hierarchical .equals as you show, that could lead to weird collection
behaviour. Also the Quad should probably include the Graph IRI in its
.hashCode()
Perhaps Quad just happens to look like Triple, without the same interface
(or a
On 04/04/16 16:15, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
This raises good questions about Quads which I think we should also
think about - e.g. if we imply make a Dataset as a subclass of Graph,
and Quad a subclass of Triple, then does .size() and .contains()
relate to only the default graph or all the qu
I started a new branch jsonld-java:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-commonsrdf/tree/jsonld-java/jsonld-java
This adds an RDFTermFactory and graph mapping for
https://github.com/jsonld-java/jsonld-java
(I've not done the parser yet - but as you've noticed the Travis
reports I thought to let
