- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 19:50:16 +0100
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: public-rdf-wg WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 25 Apr 2012, at 19:44, Sandro Hawke wrote: > Yes, we probably only get one shot with a W3C Recommendation for this, > so we don't want to get it wrong. But the Named Graphs paper was seven > years ago. I don't think sitting back and waiting for more research to > happen is a great strategy, either. We don't need research, we have practical experience of how named graphs can be applied, and where they are most useful. The named graphs paper doesn't really represent current practice. Named graphs have been in use in production systems (admittedly small scale until a few years ago) since before SPARQL 1.0 went to CR. I think we as an industry have a pretty clear idea of how they work, what needs tightening up, and what is just fine. - Steve -- Steve Harris, CTO Garlik, a part of Experian 1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK +44 20 8439 8203 http://www.garlik.com/ Registered in England and Wales 653331 VAT # 887 1335 93 Registered office: Landmark House, Experian Way, NG2 Business Park, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, England NG80 1ZZ
Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2012 18:50:55 UTC