- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 14:29:04 +0100
- To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- CC: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
>>> <http://example.com/a> { _:a a <Foo> } >>> <http://example.com/b> { _:a a <Bar> } and also related ... PREFIX : <http://example/> INSERT DATA { GRAPH :g1 { :s1 :p1 _:a } GRAPH :g2 { :s2 :p2 _:a } } followed by ... SELECT * { GRAPH ?g { ?s ?p ?o } } or SELECT ?g1 ?g2 ?o { GRAPH ?g1 { ?s2 ?p2 ?o } GRAPH ?g2 { ?s2 ?p2 ?o } } >>> >>> i.e. is there one bNode in two graphs, or two one in each graph. >> >> Exactly. This is ISSUE-21 ("Can Node-IDs be shared between parts of a quad/multigraph format?") >> >> We could do a strawpoll on that here and now. >> >> My vote, not surprising anyone, would be: >> >> +1 (shared bnodes are needed for several use cases and are simpler than using Skolem nodes) > > > -0.5 it's a significant change in behaviour for some systems, with unknown implications [would be -1 if Jena didn't do it already] > > We're not really big users of Trig, so I'd like to hear from people that are - if there aren't any big users of Trig, then I guess we probably should make the change, but I have to question why were bothering. Jena and Sesame do the same thing as each other (TriG, NQuads, SPARQL Update) Redland/rapper does not keep bnode labels across graphs in TriG apart - it simply copies the label across unchanged. Andy > > - Steve >
Received on Friday, 31 August 2012 13:29:37 UTC