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

Re: Putting metadata in the "default" graph Re: Dataset Syntax - checking for consensus

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 12:13:21 +0100
Cc: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <BE1BAE33-98C6-4476-9694-9E7A6215A223@garlik.com>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:07 UTC