W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > May 2012

Re: Making progress on graphs

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 09:18:27 +0100
Message-ID: <4FB605D3.3010302@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org


On 18/05/12 01:17, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-05-17 at 18:34 -0400, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> On 5/17/12 4:21 PM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>>> So, what should an app developer do, if they want their code to be
>>> portable between different sparql engines?
>>>
>>> (answer: they should avoid using empty named graphs.  right?)
>>>
>>>       -- Sandro
>> circa 2012. There are lots of developers, end-users, power-users already
>> working across SPARQL endpoints without issue. Of all the problems there
>> might be, empty named graphs just isn't one of them :-)
>
> What does that mean?   That there are much bigger problems?   Of course,
> but does that really mean we should cause one more?

We're not causing one more.

People are reporting from experience with existing systems.

We would be causing an issue if defining RDF to be different from common 
existing practice.

	Andy

>
>       -- Sandro
>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 18 May 2012 08:19:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:49 GMT