Chronological Thread 

< Chronological >      < Thread >

---

I have appended my comments to the tracker item. In short, I believe
a custom implementation will help you to manage RDF internally and
help resolve the dependencies you are currently bound to, but this
should not be looked at to provide useful RDF interfaces for reading
and writing specific types of metadata; the most obvious implication
of that is you would also need to write an RDF Schema library also.
So the public API considered here may be very small - consume or
produce triples.

cheers
Matt


On 1/05/2008, at 9:49 PM, David Nickerson wrote:

> Hi Justin,
>
> As I mentioned on the tracker item, it would be really good if you
> could
> put together a proposal (perhaps as a document under your cellml.org
> member page) which describes exactly what it is you are proposing
> here.
> Something along the lines of what Andrew presented when putting
> forward
> the proposed refactoring of the code generation service. I'm really
> not
> sure how a "RDF parsing service" on its own is going to help meet the
> goals you describe.
>
> I am also wondering exactly what you mean by an intermediate
> conclusion?
>
>
> Thanks,
> Andre.
>
>
> Justin Marsh wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> For those who may be interested, there has been some discussion
>> amongst
>> those involved with the CellML API recently about a proposed
>> addition of
>> an CellML API side RDF parsing service; this would, for example,
>> allow
>> us to remove our dependency on patching Mozilla, allowing us to build
>> PCEnv from an unmodified build of the Mozilla framework. The
>> discussion
>> has moved over to tracker item 358
>> ( https://tracker.physiomeproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=358 )
>>
>> Other reasons for such an addition have been for use in any future
>> metadata service, the increasing use of rdf, and for use in
>> annotating
>> systems of equations.
>>
>> Reasons against such an addition have included the availability of
>> preexisting libraries, the possibility of scope creep, the
>> possibility
>> of introducing changes or dependencies in the existing CellML API,
>> the
>> broadness of the current proposal, and a possible conceptual
>> uncleanness
>> or incorrectness.
>>
>> I would appreciate any feedback, comments about, or refinements of
>> this;
>> however, unless the discussion is still raging, we want to come to at
>> least an intermediate conclusion by Friday the 9th of May.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Justin Marsh
>> _______________________________________________
>> cellml-discussion mailing list
>> cellml-discussion at cellml.org
>> http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
> _______________________________________________
> cellml-discussion mailing list
> cellml-discussion at cellml.org
> http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion

---

• [cellml-discussion] Call for community input: decision about the addition of a CellML API side RDF parsing service, Justin Marsh, 05/01/2008
  • [cellml-discussion] Call for community input: decision about theaddition of a CellML API side RDF parsing service, David Nickerson, 05/01/2008
    • [cellml-discussion] Call for community input: decision about theaddition of a CellML API side RDF parsing service, Matt, 05/01/2008

---

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.18.