indeed, the downside is possibly having to carry out updates in more than one place - a classic consistency vs speed of access pay-off.
And where the best solution lies will depend on the nature of the data and what Thorben wants to do with it. On 23 Oct 2011, at 11:02, Paolo Castagna wrote: > Bill Roberts wrote: >> On 22 Oct 2011, at 17:25, Thorben Wallmeyer wrote: >>> Am 21.10.2011 21:22, schrieb Andy Seaborne: >>>> On 21/10/11 10:24, Thorben Wallmeyer wrote: >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I've got a simple problem and looking forward to a "good" solution. >>>>> Hopefully someone can give me a useful hint... ;-) >>>>> >>>>> I've got two TDB backed models both containing several named graphs: A >>>>> and B >>>> You mean 2 TDB datasets? >> I realise it's obvious and so you probably have good reasons you don't want >> to do it, perhaps to do with avoiding duplication - but simply copying all >> the data into a single TDB seems the easiest and quickest solution. > > Hi Bill, > indeed, that seems the easiest solution, in particular if the two RDF datasets > you want to merge do not receive a lot of updates and you do not mind having > the merged result not updated in real-time with the sources. > > If you allow stuff to be added/removed from the original RDF datasets and you > want to keep the merged dataset in sync things become more complicated. In > particular deleting stuff. > > See also: > http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/17 > > Paolo > >> Regards >> Bill >
