| 21 | |
| 22 | ''' Discussion ''' |
| 23 | pros: |
| 24 | |
| 25 | * bindings for various RDF stores that we get for free |
| 26 | |
| 27 | cons: |
| 28 | |
| 29 | * is RDF2GO still using java.net.URIs? That would mean a lot of |
| 30 | conversions that are potentially not necessary, e.g. when using a Sesame |
| 31 | Repository: org.openrdf.model.URIs get translated to java.net.URIs and |
| 32 | back to org.openrdf.model.URIs. |
| 33 | |
| 34 | * RDFContainer lacks full RDF graph access. A simple getStatements |
| 35 | method with a subject parameter would solve this though. I've also read |
| 36 | comments by Gunnar about having to cast RDFContainer to |
| 37 | SesameRDFContainer in code he wrote, I guess he had the same problem? |
| 38 | |
| 39 | Gunnar and Leo are happy with this: |
| 40 | * We keep RDFContainer as it is and only switch "getModel()" to return a RDF2GO model. |
| 41 | * We switch the methods of RDFContainer to use RDF2GO interfaces (RDF2Go's predicate, resource, etc) for the setProperty(property, value) methods. |