commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Reto Gmür <r...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [rdf] [commons-rdf] Define "local scope" and recommend cross-implementation support (#48)
Date Tue, 03 Feb 2015 16:29:07 GMT
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Andy Seaborne <notifications@github.com>
wrote:

> [snip]
>
> Why preclude graphs across JVMs (in time or space)?
>
What is imho best limited to a JVM instance is the existence of a BNode
beyond its existence within the Graph. The Graph itself can be represented
by multiple Graph Objects spread across the planet (and beyond). But as
with communication via SPARQL one cannot specify a concrete BNode to a
remote service (that is, without passing the context of the BNode).


> Databases don't work with ==
>
agreed.


> SPARQL results are attached to the place they come from in Jena if it's
> available.
>
> It can all be made to work (it currently does in most systems today)
> without LocalScope.
>
And without exposed internal identifier ;)

Cheers,
Reto

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message