[Zope3-dev] Re: RDFLib and Zope 3

[Gary Poster]

On Aug 26, 2005, at 2:56 AM, Daniel Krech wrote:
> On Aug 25, 2005, at 2:32 PM, Gary Poster wrote:
>> On Aug 24, 2005, at 9:13 PM, Michel Pelletier wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2005-08-24 at 12:39 -0400, Gary Poster wrote:
>> ...
>>>> Since Dan is already using Twisted in his app server, maybe he'd be
>>>> willing to let RDFLib drink the Zope interface Kool-Aid along  
>>>> with us
>>>> and Twisted.
>>>>
>
> I'm up for the zope.interface Kool-Aid if we can do it and fall  
> back to the current functionality when zope.interface is not  
> installed. Also, what's the latest on the likelyhood of  
> zope.interface making it into Python2.5? Or timeframe on Python2.5  
> for that matter ;)

Guido said in his blog that he's now pro-interface...
http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=92662
...but no timeframe to my knowledge (nor happy concensus in his  
blog's comments :-).  I asked Jim Fulton and he knew of no direct plans.

>>> I know he's looked at it, and previously he used zope.server before
>>> twisted.  I think he might be out for a couple of days, so we'll  
>>> wait to
>>> see what he thinks.  I wonder how "lite" the component kernel can  
>>> go.
>>>
>
> I was out for a few days... am back now and catching up. Sorry for  
> the delay in responding.

No problem.  Thanks for replying.

>> The only thing I have in mind is the interface package, which is  
>> what Twisted uses.  That's all we would need.  zope.component  
>> needs zope.interface, zope.testing, and zope.exceptions, according  
>> to its DEPENDENCIES.cfg.
>>
>>> In the mean time the adapters can live inside Zemantic, which is an
>>> rdflib to zope bridge anyway.  Let me know if you want to send  
>>> patches,
>>> otherwise I'll probably get around to adding functionality like this
>>> soon.
>>>
>
> It might be easier to implement some of these things in Zemantic  
> and push them down once we get a better idea of the impact

Understood.  I may still concentrate on RDFLib first, at least for my  
own drafts; we'll see.

>> I'm actually interested in trying to hook this up, but have very  
>> limited time.  I might play with it just within RDFLib alone  
>> during some hobby time tonight, but otherwise may  need to toss  
>> this off to you if you'll catch it.
>>
>
> Did you get a chance to give it a go? Sorry again for not getting  
> back to you sooner.

That's ok.  No, I wanted to get a feel for your take on this, and I  
had other work that needed to be done.

>> I also kind of want to hear Dan's reaction before I spend too much  
>> time.
>>
>> I thought I read that an RDF triad was itself something that could  
>> be a node in another RDF triad, but I can't find that anywhere  
>> now.  Can you confirm or deny? :-)
>>
>
> RDF does not support nested or quoted graphs. N3 and cwm[1] do  
> though and I'm interested in implementing support for nested graphs  
> to narrow the gap between rdflib and cwm[1] to help us converge on  
> some interfaces.
>
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/doc/cwm

That's the formulae stuff?  It seems pretty similar in effect to the  
reification approach, but a prettier spelling.  Efficient generic  
indexing for either is probably a solved problem but not immediately  
evident to me.

You also suggest moving away from reification in the following email;  
I'll respond to that separately, sometime this weekend hopefully.

Gary