Re: semantic web tools in a shared hosting environment

On Mar 14, 2008, at 4:12 PM, Johnson, Matthew C. (LNG-ALB) wrote:
> Can anyone give comments on RDF::Core vs. RDF::Redland vs. RDF::Trine?
> What is the strength/weakness of each? I've looked at each in the 
> past
> (except perhaps RDF::Trine) and I suspect that Redland is more "full
> featured" but am not completely sure if this is right. Is there a
> reason to use one vs. the other? Note that I'm not trying to slam any
> particular product here...just trying to learn what is useful in
> practice. Thanks.
Redland is without a doubt the most stable and standards compliant 
backend. The perl bindings work really well, and it's probably the 
best option for now. RDF::Trine is my own backend that I've been 
attempting to design with query execution in mind (for example, it can 
compile basic graph patterns from a SPARQL query down to a single SQL 
statement for the underlying database, something that neither of the 
other two backends can do at the moment). I'm not a huge fan of 
RDF::Core as it has some issues that prevent total compliance with the 
SPARQL spec, but it is the simplest backend with the fewest 
dependencies.
Hope that helps.
thanks,
.greg

Attachments

• application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s