RE: TPF and DBMSes (was Re: Hydra and Shapes)

Hi Kingsley,

On 26 Nov 2014 at 00:15, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 11/25/14 2:49 PM, Ruben Verborgh wrote:
>>> In addition, what would constitute the SPARQL endpoint, in this
scenario?
>> There is no notion of "SPARQL endpoint" in the context of triple pattern
fragments.
>> This is on purpose; only simple questions (= triple patterns) can be
asked to servers.
>> 
>>> By that I mean: an endpoint to which SPARQL-FED queries could be
directed?
>> Federated SPARQL queries over triple pattern fragment interfaces
>> should be solved using a federated triple pattern fragments client.
> 
> Yes, but can't you see I am trying to line things up with standards
> parts of SPARQL?
> 
> You position this work in the context of SPARQL, but many of the virtues
> of SPARQL, are not there.

When we talk about Linked Data Fragments and SPARQL we always try to make it
very clear that LDFs aren't a replacement for SPARQL engines. Neither have
SPARQL engines been a replacement for static file servers. Traditionally,
however, there hasn't been anything in between those two "extremes". LDF
tries to fill that gap. This slide illustrates this quite nicely I think:

 
http://www.slideshare.net/lanthaler/why-and-how-to-optimize-your-data-archit
ecture-for-an-integrated-future/36

(AFAIK, Ruben includes a similar illustration in his talks about LDFs)

Currently we only have Triple Pattern Fragments (TPFs) in there but the goal
is to create a whole spectrum. I personally am most interested in LDFs that
look very similar to current JSON-based Web APIs... even though that will
mean that some queries might be *extremely* inefficient or impossible
(without crawling the entire API).

I hope this clarifies matters a bit


Cheers,
Markus


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler