Sure, that would be natural. Let me put the question this way: is a per-graph arrangement of this kind interesting to anyone who isn't interested in LDP?
The other direction here is forward with respect to locking. Claude and others (including me) have thrown around ideas on the list about how we could introduce more finely-grained locking for datasets, and I definitely think of this as a first tiny baby step in that direction. --- A. Soroka The University of Virginia Library > On Jan 11, 2017, at 2:58 PM, Claude Warren <cla...@xenei.com> wrote: > > perhaps in extras? > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 7:39 PM, ajs6f <g...@git.apache.org> wrote: > >> Github user ajs6f commented on the issue: >> >> https://github.com/apache/jena/pull/204 >> >> `pergraph`: Just thought that `core` was getting awfully crowded. I >> don't care one way or the other-- happy to put them anywhere. >> >> `jena-ldp`: One of the questions I'm trying to raise with this PR is >> exactly that-- is this useful only for LDP-type workloads (in which case >> maybe it belongs outside ARQ entirely) or not (in which case it has more >> claim to be in ARQ)? >> >> >> --- >> If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your >> reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature >> enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please >> contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket >> with INFRA. >> --- >> > > > > -- > I like: Like Like - The likeliest place on the web > <http://like-like.xenei.com> > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/claudewarren
