On Jun 8, 2015, at 6:35 PM, Andy Seaborne <[email protected]> wrote:
> less - there is no transactionality across the contained graphs. (Model.graph
> transactions aren't connected to dataset transactions)
Ah, glad I asked! {grin}
>> As far as model-as-views-of-datasets: is it true that all that is needed for
>> this is a good in-memory dataset?
>
> It would be useful for working in-memory. For example default union graph can
> bne made to work efficiently, as can dataset transactions.
Okay, so it's more that having a good in-memory dataset would be helpful here?
I'm just trying to establish if you see the in-memory dataset improvement as
_blocking_ models-as-views or just that models-as-views would be worth more and
work better accompanied by a better in-memory dataset.
>> What about datasets that are much too large for memory? Or impls of Dataset
>> that incur network latency in operation? Or do these cases just imply the
>> need for the right kinds of laziness in views on Datasets?
>
> Models from TDB are already views.
> public class GraphTDB extends GraphView …
Cool. So we already have that laziness in hand in the form of GraphView.
---
A. Soroka
The University of Virginia Library
