Re: Graphs Design 6.2

On Wed, 2012-04-25 at 19:36 +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
> On 25 Apr 2012, at 14:28, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> ...
> >> Hm. I am not sure I understand this restriction. It forces the user to come up with a URI or a blank node for no good reason. Why is it a problem to say that if I say:
> >> 
> >> 
> >> @union .
> >> { a b c }
> >> d { e f g }
> >> h { i j k }
> >> 
> >> then the default graph is 
> >> 
> >> { a b c .
> >>  e f g .
> >>  i j k .
> >> }
> >> 
> >> What is wrong with that? It is only a shorthand...
> > 
> > Yeah, I suppose it's probably okay.    I was thinking of union datasets
> > as a somewhat different kind of dataset.   
> > 
> > If you loaded that into 4store, it would have to make up a graph name,
> > but maybe that's fine.
> 
> It has to anyway, it's a quad store*.

Good point.

> But in any case, the idea of @union is antithetical to the way these systems are used, see my other mail on the subject.

Please note the meeting minutes or my summary -- as clarified during the
meeting, @union is just syntactic sugar in TriG, shorthand for having to
repeat all the triples in all the named graphs.

Does that change your mind about it, at all?

    -- Sandro

> - Steve
> 
> * In 4store the default graph is called <default:> but other systems use other URIs - it's generally hidden from the users anyway.
>

Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2012 18:49:36 UTC