W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > June 2016

Re: Dealing with distributed nature of Linked Data and SPARQL

From: Axel Ngonga <ngonga@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 17:32:43 +0200
To: public-lod@w3.org
Message-ID: <5949fd8e-5ce4-484f-ccaf-21564771972c@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
Hi Martynas,

Hybrid solutions do exist that can do 3. (see, e.g., [1]). However, 1. 
is definitely the most scalable approach (see, e.g., [2,3]). I'd suggest 
running 1. and 3. in parallel to ensure maximal user satisfaction.

Best,
Axel

[1] http://aderis.linkedopendata.net
[2] http://aksw.org/Projects/QUETSAL.html
[3] http://svn.aksw.org/papers/2016/Thesis_Saleem/public.pdf

On 08/06/16 14:06, Martynas Jusevičius wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> we are developing software that consumes data both from Linked Data
> and SPARQL endpoints.
>
> Most of the time, these technologies complement each other. We've come
> across an issue though, which occurs in situations where RDF
> description of the same resources is available using both of them.
>
> Lest take a resource http://data.semanticweb.org/person/andy-seaborne
> as an example. Its RDF description is available in at least 2
> locations:
> - on a SPARQL endpoint:
> http://xmllondon.com/sparql?query=DESCRIBE%20%3Chttp%3A%2F%2Fdata.semanticweb.org%2Fperson%2Fandy-seaborne%3E
> - as Linked Data: http://data.semanticweb.org/person/andy-seaborne/rdf
>
> These descriptions could be identical (I haven't checked), but it is
> more likely than not that they're out of sync, complementary, or
> possibly even contradicting each other, if reasoning is considered.
>
> If a software agent has access to both the SPARQL endpoint and Linked
> Data resource, what should it consider as the resource description?
> There are at least 3 options:
> 1. prioritize SPARQL description over Linked Data
> 2. prioritize Linked Data description over SPARQL
> 3. merge both descriptions
>
> I am leaning towards #3 as the sensible solution. But then I think the
> end-user should be informed which part of the description came from
> which source. This would be problematic if the descriptions are
> triples only, but should be doable with quads. That leads to another
> problem however, that both LD and SPARQL responses are under-specified
> in terms of quads.
>
> What do you think? Maybe this is a well-known issue, in which case
> please enlighten me with some articles :)
>
>
> Martynas
> atomgraph.com
> @atomgraphhq
>
Received on Wednesday, 8 June 2016 15:33:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 June 2016 15:33:16 UTC