That's a good question, and I don't think anyone who still maintains
RDFLib actually knows :)
I wanted to fix it, but never got it out the door:
(4 years ago :see_no_evil:)
On 19 February 2018 at 02:43, scossu <sco...@artic.edu> wrote:
> I am working on an alternate back end implementation of the Store interface
> that uses LMDB as its persistence layer:
> I noticed that the Dataset class passes a Graph instance to the Store when
> handling contexts:
> The Sleepycat store seems to support this too.
> I am not sure about the reason why the context has to be the whole graph
> rather than a URI reference (i.e. the context graph identifier). This
> increases storage size and seems to make the implementation of both the back
> end and the upstream code consuming Graph and Dataset instances more
> I guess there is a reason for this approach. Can someone explain the
> rationale? Would it be otherwise OK to just strip the identifier off the
> graph and only store that (which would introduce some back and forth
> conversion efforts but it would keep things consistent)?
> Thank you.
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "rdflib-dev" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to rdflib-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.