RE: totalItems vs void:triples

On 27 Okt 2014 at 20:44, Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote:
> On Monday 27. October 2014 15.12.56 Markus Lanthaler wrote:
>> What are the practical consequences of this? I think it boils down to the
>> questions of what people will use hydra:totalItems for. Do you have an
>> application that requires hydra:totalItems to be 100% accurate?
> 
> Errr, no... :-) So, what it boils down to for me is that I don't see the
use
> for two vaguely defined terms. The approximate nature of void:triples is
> presently useful. Clearly. And it will allow stuff like sampling
algorithms
> in the future. I just don't see the reason why totalItems should be
roughly
> the same, that just seems like duplication, URI aliasing, and a waste of
> bandwidth to me. I much rather like to see it being defined as exact at
the
> time of the timestamp (which may be expressed as the Date header field in
a
> HTTP response).
> 
> Just speculating: If you had a data stream management system (as opposed
to
> the database management systems that are usually underneath the stuff we
> do)... Having the exact number of triples in a rolling or tumbling window,
> which may be a small number, might be important and actually not difficult
to
> compute, no?
> 
> So, I guess I'll turn the question around: Do you have any applications
> that are able to make both terms useful if they are both defined to be
> approximations?

Not if we are talking about counting triples. Generally, totalItems however
doesn't count triples (as in LDF) but items in a Hydra Collection (yeah you
could also argue it expresses the number of ?collection hydra:member ?item
triples for a fixed ?collection).


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler

Received on Thursday, 6 November 2014 21:06:38 UTC