- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 19:57:57 -0400
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, 2012-05-28 at 09:58 +0100, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>
> Sure, this section simply copies what's in SPARQL Update, and is
> consistent with SPARQL Update, but if graph stores are purely a SPARQL
> Update thing, then I don't see why we need to talk about it. SPARQL
> Update already explains the relationship between graph stores and RDF
> datasets.
I expect every system working with datasets will need this concept, so
text in a spec might help folks align on the terminology. On the other
hand, I don't happen to like this term, so I certainly wont argue for
keeping it.
(What I don't like about it is that it's ambiguous about whether it's
just storing one graph for you or actually capable of storing a dataset.
The terms triplestore and quadstore are pretty clear about this, but I
can't tell from "graph store" which kind it is -- and it sounds more
like triplestore. In my current code I call it a "datastore".)
-- Sandro
Received on Tuesday, 29 May 2012 23:58:00 UTC