W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > February 2013

Re: Blank Node Identifiers and RDF Dataset Normalization

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 18:33:31 +0000
Message-Id: <6252900E-1A2C-438C-B120-B51CBCFF01F7@garlik.com>
To: "public-rdf-wg@w3.org WG" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 2013-02-26, at 18:28, Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com> wrote:
> On 2013-02-26, at 17:46, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com> wrote:
> 
>> Jena users find the default graph concept useful:
>> 
>> 1/ When there is one graph being published
>> 
>> 2/ As the union of the named graphs
>> 
>> 3/ As a single place to put the manifest
>> 
>> Conclusion: you don't have to use it if you don't want to.
>> 
>> (all well worn points)
> 
> Right, if people are genuinely finding it useful, I don't think it's reasonable to ask for it to be removed.
> 
> 1-3 above /could/ be handed perfectly well in other ways, in a pure quad system. However, they weren't. C'est la vie.

This is a good illustration of the reason I'm so nervous about incorporating "neat tricks" into our specs without real-world experience of their consequences. It's extremely hard to remove them afterwards, and can take some time for people to realise that they are pain points.

- Steve

-- 
Steve Harris
Experian
+44 20 3042 4132
Registered in England and Wales 653331 VAT # 887 1335 93
80 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 5JL
Received on Tuesday, 26 February 2013 18:33:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:54 GMT