Re: [dev-biblio] [Fwd: [RFC] RDF metadata API draft]

[Bruce D'Arcus <bdarcus@gmail.com>]

cc-ing ODF metadata list; re 
<http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Metadata_API>.

Michael Stahl wrote:

> i am currently designing an API that would be used for implementing the
> ODF metadata specification (part of ODF 1.2) [1].

Nice!

FWIW, I just forwarded your note to the W3C semweb list, hoping some of 
the experts over their will have time to take a look.

A couple of quick questions (more than firm statements) ...


1)

On:

"RDFa statements are handled specially because they are not logically 
part of any graph. (Don't blame me.)"

Am *really* not sure about this, but I wonder if it would make sense to 
consider the document itself a graph? This might have other benefits, 
but also would maybe allow you to not treat RDFa differently from the 
perspective of the API?

That would also then fix your later "gets the names of all the graphs in 
the repository. //FIXME: except "unspecified" graphs for RDFa, i guess..."

2) "executes a SPARQL "SELECT" query."

Oooh ... nice! Do I thus assume the endpoint can be arbitrary? E.g. if I 
have an endpoint setup on a relational database somewhere, I can query 
that from the OOo API?

If yes, that would be killer.

FWIW, I've been playing with an RDF store using ARC2, which has support 
for the SPARQL update functions (which I don't think are officially part 
  of the W3C spec). As you would expect, it allow me to insert and 
delete triples over SPARQL.

3) On:

"/** creates a graph with the given name.

         <p>
         The name must be unique within the repository.
         The name must be a valid file name in an ODF package.
//FIXME: clarify a bit more?
         </p>"

Wouldn't it be easier and better to just require a URI for the name?

That would fix this problem too:

"    /** creates a graph with the given name.

         <p>
         The name must be unique within the repository.
         The name must be a valid file name in an ODF package.
//FIXME: clarify a bit more?
         </p>"

Just require the full URI and be done with it. I see no downside.

Bruce