- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 12:24:59 +0100
- To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- CC: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 27/09/12 12:13, Steve Harris wrote: > 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? Because different customers have different requirements. I come across both cases, but not necessary with the same data. >> 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. Yes, it is, and SPARQL is an RDF query language. Requirement - publish data. The idea of a "TriG" sub-ecosystem and an "RDF" sub-ecosystem is not a happy thought. Andy > > - Steve >
Received on Thursday, 27 September 2012 11:25:27 UTC