- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 18:46:43 +0000
- To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 26/02/13 17:53, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > On 2/26/13 12:46 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote: >> Jena users find the default graph concept useful: >> >> 1/ When there is one graph being published > > Yes-ish. I say that because the implications are really obvious. > > Imagine if that's how an SQL RDBMS handled the fact that you just wanted > to have some records created quickly i.e., they had an anonymous default > table. Likewise, the schema was an anonymous table etc.. That an analogy does not work for me. Default database in a DBMS is nearer. > >> >> 2/ As the union of the named graphs > > But they could also explicitly seek a union of said graphs in a query if > that's what delivered the solution sought. Different - that would be the query asking for it, not the publisher providing it. Historical note: One original usage of graph labelling was "contexts" - labels that section up a large graph - where the intent is that there is one graph, data-managed in sections. > >> >> 3/ As a single place to put the manifest > > That place could have a name by default. Workable with care. 1/ Your name != my name because your default graph != my default graph. (so please not rdf:manifestGraph for the name) 2/ Includes the manifest in the union of graphs 3/ Adding a rdf:type to find the manifest then allows several. Then the manifest is still "special" in some way so it's more of a different approach than a unifying solution. >> Conclusion: you don't have to use it if you don't want to. >> >> (all well worn points) >> >> Andy > > Yes-ish. > > The trouble is that users always use defaults under the misguided > assumption that defaults know best :-) On that we agree! "default" = "a guess". Also, "default" is often taken to mean "solve my problem" which is not. > > Kingsley >> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > >
Received on Tuesday, 26 February 2013 18:47:16 UTC