--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vocbench-user" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vocbench-use...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/vocbench-user/CAEGjdLx9kftTGAfEA5VJ0QG7vqcPAzdXayeMvNg7_%3D4PR%3Dvv7A%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/vocbench-user/78f23771-82c7-4d82-944d-1463a8eae15cn%40googlegroups.com.
Dear Lou,
thanks for your kind words. To be totally fair though, I must say that, while RDF4J is a very much used middleware, it is not a standard, the standard (with due limitations) is the SPARQL protocol.
Obviously, if one is a vendor of a triple store, might consider what’s around there and look for compliancy with it.
But this can go only up to a limited compliancy: implementing REST API is doable with a proper wrapper if they already implement all of those features somewhat else. Compliancy with the sail architecture (which indeed only necessary for certain features such as history, validation, trivial reasoning, undo), server side, is very much more like telling how to sort your own house from inside it :-)
So, it is to me perfectly understandable that a certain vendor may or may not adhere to certain specs. In VB2 we had a lightweight layer for compliancy with different middleware (e.g. Jena) and, for how light it was, it was a pain to keep it aligned with evolutions of the specs and it was in any case always missing some peculiarities of each specific middleware. Eventually, with VB3, we took the decision to take a stance, merry one technology, and that was RDF4J.
Seen the other way round, that is also the reason for which we cannot simply rely on standards (I’m talking about this specific case, not standards in general), as they are good for sending the same SPARQL query over different triple stores, they are not enough for backing a complex system such as VocBench. There’s more to that, under the general topic of limited interoperability (more, interchangeability) of triple store, we’ll write a section on the manual one of these days :-)
Just to give you a brief example: even though they share not only the same API, but the same architecture, it is not uncommon for us to deal with restating queries in different ways so that they behave well on both RDF4J stores and GDB stores.
As you know, you can always have a line passing through 2 points in space. With three you need luck :-)
Kind Regards,
Armando
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/vocbench-user/d7c2a5b9-cf62-46b9-80da-38bbb99a93c3n%40googlegroups.com.