Confirmed users, Bureaucrats and Sysops emeriti
2,976
edits
Talk:RDF:Interfaces: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
comment on a bunch of comments.
Peter Wilson (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
(comment on a bunch of comments.) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Peter Wilson: Some notes on current shortcomings: | Peter Wilson: Some notes on current shortcomings: | ||
*1. Ensure all rdf nodes have a value property. Its a pita to have ValueUTF8, Value etc. | *1. Ensure all rdf nodes have a value property. Its a pita to have ValueUTF8, Value etc. | ||
I'll take a mental note on this one. | |||
*2. rdfINumber JS compatible decimal number. (Possibly replace nsIRDFInt) | *2. rdfINumber JS compatible decimal number. (Possibly replace nsIRDFInt) | ||
*3. rdfIBoolean JS compatible boolean. | *3. rdfIBoolean JS compatible boolean. | ||
Those are for later. Replacing ints is not going to happen. No idea what "js compatible" should mean, though. | |||
*4. rdfIService.findResource(string)->bool should actually exist. (see 5.) A better name would be hasResource (It doesn't actually find anything). | *4. rdfIService.findResource(string)->bool should actually exist. (see 5.) A better name would be hasResource (It doesn't actually find anything). | ||
Useless. Whether any datasource has a particular resource doesn't have a single use case. (The RDF Service is globally unique, or, a singleton.) | |||
*5. Is there any way to implement a case insensitive version of getSources? | *5. Is there any way to implement a case insensitive version of getSources? | ||
Yes, by hand. | |||
*6. Are rdf:type and xml:lang handled correctly, at all? | *6. Are rdf:type and xml:lang handled correctly, at all? | ||
Not yet, but at least for rdf:type, there is a bug on file. I know about xml:lang. | |||
*7. getDataSource should throw an exception if the source does not exist. Currently an empty DS is returned. | *7. getDataSource should throw an exception if the source does not exist. Currently an empty DS is returned. | ||
*8. OR, A way to check that a datasource exists without creating it as a by-product. | *8. OR, A way to check that a datasource exists without creating it as a by-product. | ||
That is a feature, not a bug. But it may happen that we completely drop the rdf service for this. | |||
*9. JS Access to the blob type. Other API manage to handle byte objects. Together with 6. you would be able to implement any xsd or user defined type - but better to use XPCOM interfaces for each type. | *9. JS Access to the blob type. Other API manage to handle byte objects. Together with 6. you would be able to implement any xsd or user defined type - but better to use XPCOM interfaces for each type. | ||
Which APIs? | |||
*10. Access to facts via the pattern (Subject ?Predicate Object). Currently, you have to do ArcsOut and test for the Object. Call it getPredicates. (see 5.) | *10. Access to facts via the pattern (Subject ?Predicate Object). Currently, you have to do ArcsOut and test for the Object. Call it getPredicates. (see 5.) | ||
Not going to happen, this is a pretty rare usecase. At least so far, and we're not going to make it performant. That would mean that we had to update a third hashtable for all operations which would result in an overall performance decay. Veto from my side. | |||
*11. You already know about the rdf parser error handling. | *11. You already know about the rdf parser error handling. | ||
*12. Call the new string literal rdfIString (Numbers are literals as well). Reserve the term literal as a generic term for non-resources. | *12. Call the new string literal rdfIString (Numbers are literals as well). Reserve the term literal as a generic term for non-resources. | ||
I'll take a mental note. | |||