RE: DBpedia now available as triple pattern fragments

On 31 Okt 2014 at 10:33, Ruben Verborgh wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
>>> Kudos! Fantastic work Ruben. Is there already a public status page
comparing
>>> the uptime of DBpedia's SPARQL endpoint for a query equivalent to a TPF
>>> request?
> 
> I use Pingdom to track the availability of the triple pattern fragments
server.
> 
> I also track the DBpedia public SPARQL endpoint; however this is more
tricky.
> The Pingdom server only pings one URL, and I have sometimes get cached
results,
> even at times when DBpedia was down.

That's weird... any idea why that happens?


> Results will be made available publicly,
> as well as the monthly cost of hosting the server.

Fantastic


>> The utility of that serves what purpose?  I think Ruben clearly described
this as a
> complimentary addition.
> 
> Exactly _because_ I described them as a complementary addition.
> It wouldn't make sense to host DBpedia as triple pattern fragments
> if the DBpedia SPARQL endpoint had high availability.
> After all, the DBpedia SPARQL endpoint solves SPARQL queries much faster
> when it is available-which is not always the case.

Exactly

>> That said, if you feel there's value in comparing both, I'll be happy to
invest
>> some time in telling a complete story,  FWIW.
> 
> I can suggest my ISWC2014 slides (and talk, a recorded version will be
> published), as they really emphasize the trade-offs involved in the
> different interfaces:
> http://www.slideshare.net/RubenVerborgh/querying-datasets-on-the-web-with
> -high- availability

I think we are all very aware of the difference and the trade-offs. What I
wanted to have was some objective data whether the claims we make (high
availability at low cost) are true in practice.


Cheers,
Markus



--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler

Received on Friday, 31 October 2014 13:33:39 UTC