[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

What's the status of Rena?

Lyle Johnson

1/31/2005 8:32:00 PM

Can anyone comment on the status of Rena
(http://raa.ruby-lang.org/pro...)? It's a library for
processing RDF, and the API looks promising, but there hasn't been a
release since last July and my recent e-mail to the author went
unanswered.
8 Answers

Aredridel

1/31/2005 8:50:00 PM

0

On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 05:32:06 +0900, Lyle Johnson <lyle.johnson@gmail.com> wrote:
> Can anyone comment on the status of Rena
> (http://raa.ruby-lang.org/pro...)? It's a library for
> processing RDF, and the API looks promising, but there hasn't been a
> release since last July and my recent e-mail to the author went
> unanswered.

Using it without trouble, liking it a lot, not as complete as redland,
but far more fun.

gabriele renzi

1/31/2005 9:07:00 PM

0

Aredridel ha scritto:
> On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 05:32:06 +0900, Lyle Johnson <lyle.johnson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Can anyone comment on the status of Rena
>>(http://raa.ruby-lang.org/pro...)? It's a library for
>>processing RDF, and the API looks promising, but there hasn't been a
>>release since last July and my recent e-mail to the author went
>>unanswered.
>
>
> Using it without trouble, liking it a lot, not as complete as redland,
> but far more fun.
>
>

someone could sum up the differences beetween rubyrdf, the samizdat
rdf/sqish implementation and Rena?
Isn't there a significant overlap beetween all this stuff?

Lyle Johnson

1/31/2005 9:39:00 PM

0

On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 06:10:45 +0900, gabriele renzi
<rff_rff@remove-yahoo.it> wrote:

> someone could sum up the differences beetween rubyrdf, the samizdat
> rdf/sqish implementation and Rena?
> Isn't there a significant overlap beetween all this stuff?

I did some research into Rena, Ruby/RDF and some of the other
RDF-related projects last summer.

I didn't get very far with evaluating Samizdat due to the large number
of dependencies; but I think it's accurate to say that it's more of an
application that uses RDF, than a library (or "framework", if you
prefer) for processing RDF.

Dan Brickley has confirmed that Ruby/RDF is effectively a dead
project, which leaves Rena, Semitar and Redland. As Aredridel hinted,
Redland is certainly the most mature of the three, but it's heavily
dependent on C extension code. Semitar was (is?) sort-of a hybrid of
"mostly Ruby" and some C extension code. Rena was (is?) completely
implemented in Ruby. All of them provide, to some degree,
functionality for parsing RDF into a model and then querying that
data.

gabriele renzi

1/31/2005 10:44:00 PM

0

Lyle Johnson ha scritto:
> On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 06:10:45 +0900, gabriele renzi
> <rff_rff@remove-yahoo.it> wrote:
>
>
>>someone could sum up the differences beetween rubyrdf, the samizdat
>>rdf/sqish implementation and Rena?
>>Isn't there a significant overlap beetween all this stuff?
>
>
> I did some research into Rena, Ruby/RDF and some of the other
> RDF-related projects last summer.
>
> I didn't get very far with evaluating Samizdat due to the large number
> of dependencies; but I think it's accurate to say that it's more of an
> application that uses RDF, than a library (or "framework", if you
> prefer) for processing RDF.

I knew, but I thought it somewhat embedded a module for handling RDF
that coulf be factored out

> Dan Brickley has confirmed that Ruby/RDF is effectively a dead
> project, which leaves Rena, Semitar and Redland. As Aredridel hinted,
> Redland is certainly the most mature of the three, but it's heavily
> dependent on C extension code. Semitar was (is?) sort-of a hybrid of
> "mostly Ruby" and some C extension code. Rena was (is?) completely
> implemented in Ruby. All of them provide, to some degree,
> functionality for parsing RDF into a model and then querying that
> data.

thanks a lot for clarifying.

Dmitry Borodaenko

2/4/2005 11:07:00 AM

0

On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 07:45:45 +0900, gabriele renzi
<rff_rff@remove-yahoo.it> wrote:
> > I didn't get very far with evaluating Samizdat due to the large number
> > of dependencies; but I think it's accurate to say that it's more of an
> > application that uses RDF, than a library (or "framework", if you
> > prefer) for processing RDF.
> I knew, but I thought it somewhat embedded a module for handling RDF
> that coulf be factored out

It can be, and it shouldn't be hard: I never got to do this only
because no one expressed interest in that. Outside of standard Ruby
library, Samizdat's RDF storage only depends on Ruby/DBI with
Ruby/Postgres.

Just looked again, it seems all it would take is to take out
samizdat/storage.rb, config.yaml (you'd only need the db, ns, and map
sections), and a couple of definitions from samizdat.rb (class
SamizdatConfig and def config). Should I package that as a separate
library?

--
Dmitry Borodaenko

Aria Stewart

2/4/2005 7:38:00 PM

0

> > > I didn't get very far with evaluating Samizdat due to the large number
> > > of dependencies; but I think it's accurate to say that it's more of an
> > > application that uses RDF, than a library (or "framework", if you
> > > prefer) for processing RDF.
> > I knew, but I thought it somewhat embedded a module for handling RDF
> > that coulf be factored out
>
> It can be, and it shouldn't be hard: I never got to do this only
> because no one expressed interest in that. Outside of standard Ruby
> library, Samizdat's RDF storage only depends on Ruby/DBI with
> Ruby/Postgres.
>
> Just looked again, it seems all it would take is to take out
> samizdat/storage.rb, config.yaml (you'd only need the db, ns, and map
> sections), and a couple of definitions from samizdat.rb (class
> SamizdatConfig and def config). Should I package that as a separate
> library?

I'd be very interested.

Ari

gabriele renzi

2/4/2005 7:52:00 PM

0

Aredridel ha scritto:


>>Just looked again, it seems all it would take is to take out
>>samizdat/storage.rb, config.yaml (you'd only need the db, ns, and map
>>sections), and a couple of definitions from samizdat.rb (class
>>SamizdatConfig and def config). Should I package that as a separate
>>library?
>
>
> I'd be very interested.

+1 from me

Dmitry Borodaenko

2/7/2005 5:29:00 PM

0

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 04:55:15 +0900, gabriele renzi
<rff_rff@remove-yahoo.it> wrote:
> >>Should I package that as a separate library?
> > I'd be very interested.
> +1 from me

Ok, I'm convinced, wait for the first release in the next couple of days.

--
Dmitry Borodaenko