RE: totalItems vs void:triples

On 14 Okt 2014 at 17:18, Ruben Verborgh wrote:
>> Right. Nevertheless some applications (e.g. rendering UIs) can be
simplified
>> if the totalItems property is "reasonably accurate". That's why I would
like
>> to avoid defining it strictly and instead slightly tweak the explanation
in
>> the TPF spec to avoid inferences as the one Kjetil made :-)
>> 
>> Makes sense?
> 
> Reasonably accurate sounds fine indeed.
> 
> But.
> 
>>    The metadata set MAY additionally contain variations of the above
>>    Triple [void:triples]. For instance, if the exact number of matching
>>    triples is known, it is RECOMMENDED to add a triple with the
>>    same subject and object and the hydra:totalItems predicate.
> 
> I'm wondering now whether the Hydra property should be the default
> and the VoID property recommended.
> 
> But that of course depends on how "reasonably accurate" hydra:totalItems
is defined.
> As far as it is implemented now, the best possible estimate is used for
void:triples,
> and I don't see any reason to do otherwise.
> Is that best possible estimate good enough for hydra:totalItems?
> 
> Any thoughts on this?

To be honest, not really but my gut feeling is that using hydra:totalItems
should be fine. I expect that in most cases the estimate will be (quite)
accurate since the complete data might be retrieved by an LDF client. Things
like search engine results on the other hand are not really expected to be
retrieved completely. What's your experience regarding the accuracy of the
triple count? Are there implementations that are far off?


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler

Received on Tuesday, 14 October 2014 17:52:35 UTC