> set union mode on the dataset
I mean you're talking about this
<#dataset> rdf:type tdb:DatasetTDB ;
tdb:location "DB" ;
tdb:unionDefaultGraph true ;
.
> or (3.13.0) the service for default to query all graphs.
is this referring to "?default-graph-uri=" or
Hi
I have so far been happy with Jena + Lucene / Elastic. Just trying to get a
quick answer whether it can work with other Jena based API like Virtuoso /
MarkLogic.
If I wrap a MarkLogic Dataset in a Jena TextDataset, can it work as
expected ?
Given that a MarkLogic / Virtuoso Dataset
Would you be able to file a ticket (or two) recording those more general
issues? That would be really helpful so that we don't lose track of them.
ajs6f
> On Sep 11, 2019, at 8:01 AM, Nouwt, B. (Barry)
> wrote:
>
> Hi all, just a quick status update about my specific 'Not in a transaction'
On 11/09/2019 16:28, Laura Morales wrote:
Presumably this is more than one TDB database.
yes, a few 10s
What works is when graphs are in the same database.
this is not easy for me to switch to. My problem is that I'm pulling multiple
sources (RDF) from different places, and I want all
> Presumably this is more than one TDB database.
yes, a few 10s
> What works is when graphs are in the same database.
this is not easy for me to switch to. My problem is that I'm pulling multiple
sources (RDF) from different places, and I want all of them together to be my
default graph. If I
Hi all, just a quick status update about my specific 'Not in a transaction'
error. The error disappears like Andy predicted by not using to tdb:GraphTDB as
storage, but just using ja:MemoryModel for now. This is good enough for my use
case, but the more general issues that Andy and ajs6f
JENA-1667 and others.
Presumably this is more than one TDB database.
What works is when graphs are in the same database.
Each database is it's own transaction system so working across them is
going to be difficult to provide in the most general case.
What might be better is define the
For what it's worth, 3.7.0 does seem to work as well. On the other hand, 3.8.0,
3.9.0, 3.10.0, 3.11.0, 3.12.0, none of them work, they return the same error.
It looks like as if something was introduced between 3.7.0 and 3.8.0 that broke
the UnionModel and transactions.
Could somebody please
> Forgot to mention: Fuseki 3.12
I fear guys that you've introduced a new regression in 3.12.0 regarding the
UnionModel/transactions/TDB. I've spent hours debugging my code and Fuseki
configuration, until I noticed that my dev server was 3.6.0 but in the prod
server I had installed 3.12.0 (the
