Re: [Social-discuss] The Case for Branching Elgg?

[cal]

On 15:29, Tue 30 Mar 10, Pablo Martin wrote:
>  * rdf: i dont see any support (other than foaf), but should be easy to build 
> a
> full rdf view(rdf views for all entities) based on the generic object model 
> (as
> long as you can keep it arbitrary).

that would be the quick way, and we could have a pretty decent export for most 
of the objects (views for raw RDF, RDFa embedded on templates...). We could 
agree on the ontologies for objects / actions beforehand.

>> It's not a trivial task, but having a mapper that translates ontologies to
>> your native
>> type of object, and able to build optimised sparql queries, could make
>> semweb development
>> as easy as changing your relational backend for a triplestore.
>>

>This is a tricky problem, but there's tools to map relational databases to
>triples.  I think the internal backend is your choice Relational, file,
>Sqlite, etc.   However, the interoperability should be in the form of
>triples, so this means linking to a editable FOAF files (elgg does this
>already) or marking things up in RDFa.  You may want to have a small triple
>store augmenting a relational DB.  You can be brave and go for a scalable
>triplestore like 4store, but that may be too great a paradigm shift for
>many, to start with.

having a closer look at ARC2, it could be an option to tweak the entities system
that elgg uses so it can be exposed (and updated) using SPARQL. The API on the
surface could remain the same, so we can keep using nice plugins :)

Thoughts?
-- 
e pur si muove...

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature