Re: AW: AW: AW: ORG browser

On 07/15/2013 01:54 PM, Dave Reynolds wrote:
>> Note that simply resolving URIs is not enough anyway. Unless you have
>> slices or your URIs resolve to provide incoming as well as outgoing
>> links (in which case you are going to get some *really* big result
>> pages). You would need to do it via a SPARQL endpoint.

I agree. But, there is a but: it is partly "Linked Data friendly". If a 
QB or VoID dataset - which I generally think that they describe the same 
resource - is discovered, one should be able to follow their nose to 
each of the observations. Is this currently possible via 
qb:observationGroup and qb:observation? (Sorry, I haven't looked at 
these properties closer before)

So, at some point it comes down to: 
http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/33

It is an interface problem. Whether there is an HTML or an RDF 
representation, how do we reasonably let the consumer reach to each 
observation? Under normal circumstances, the consumer should probably 
get to the bulk of the dataset through discovering qb:DataSet or 
void:Dataset. When this is not possible for non-trivial datasets, 
applications end up resorting to SPARQL - which is not necessarily a 
"bad" thing, but still can be a PITA in comparison to dereferencing.


On 11/26/2013 06:58 PM, Benedikt Kaempgen wrote:
> In general, however, I think that a SPARQL endpoint should not be a
> necessity to get all data for a QB dataset. In case the number of
> observations is too large, slices can be used to split observations
> into several resolvable uris; in case the number of observations is
> reasonable, the incoming qb:dataSet links - in my opinion - should be
> returned with the dataset URI.

Creating slices on datasets with a lot of observations, and no existing 
slices is a lot of work :'( And even still, the problem doesn't go away 
with slices, as they would still point to a lot of observations. 
Alternative is to have many slice groups but I think that just shifts 
the problem to another place.

> Unfortunately, not all datasets (e.g., Linked SDMX Data by Sarven
> [2]) are doing this, currently.

If you mean there is no link from a qb:DataSet to each of its own 
qb:Observations, that's true. But, there are slices in some 270.info 
datasets. Can you clarify? Is there a particular dataset you are looking 
at or are you only referring to the Linked SDMX implementation? Would 
you mind creating an issue https://github.com/csarven/linked-sdmx if 
there is a fundamental problem with the transformation? Much appreciated!

-Sarven
http://csarven.ca/#i

Received on Friday, 6 December 2013 12:10:46 UTC