reading https://patterns.dataincubator.org/book/data-management-patterns.html

the ideas of how to use named graphs seem almost obvious but I'm glad someone wrote about it since I've seen comments of the tenor that named graphs is something one would almost never need on real life RDF

it seems at least someone is using them 🙂

As far as I know almost everyone doing anything substantial with RDF will use named graphs; it’d be hard not to.

We certainly use named graphs extensively

You should however be careful with them; named graphs are a bit of an afterthought (introduced in) SPARQL 1.1. It’s a real shame for example that CONSTRUCT statements can’t construct graphs - there’s an issue discussing adding this to SPARQL 1.2 though. In particular you shouldn’t give graphs any real semantic meaning. Typically you usually only want to use them for data management; or establishing known/trusted subset(s) of information for processing.

I'm trying to create a lil blog generator

I was thinking of giving every "document" on my blog its own named graph

say, the backing data of "/blog/2020-05-01-title" would live on the named graph "/blog/2020-05-01-title/data"

(not sure about the urls yet)

i think that would correspond to this pattern: https://patterns.dataincubator.org/book/graph-per-resource.html

Yes that makes sense and is pretty common; as it enables you to update the resource through a simple drop and replace of the graph

Am I correct in the recollection that data is only expected to be consistent within a given named graph?