- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 12:13:21 +0100
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 2012-09-27, at 12:08, Andy Seaborne wrote: > > On 26/09/12 17:41, Lee Feigenbaum wrote: >> We need to support it for compatibility, but I think it's a mistake to >> specify that anything important be put in that graph. > > There are two uses cases: you and Steve emphasis the complicated case of multiple graphs collected from many places. If that's not the case, why are you bothering with named graphs? > The simple case is one graph. For that, making the publisher go through "naming" is just overhead for them. But that's "just" RDF, isn't it? In that case I don't see the issue. - Steve -- Steve Harris, CTO Garlik, a part of Experian +44 7854 417 874 http://www.garlik.com/ Registered in England and Wales 653331 VAT # 887 1335 93 80 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 5JL
Received on Thursday, 27 September 2012 11:13:53 UTC