- From: Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 20:52:00 +0000
- To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
Thanks, Kingsley and Aldo. I have to say you raise quite a lot of concerns, or at least matters of interest. I really don't think it is a big deal that I asked someone to consider resources when accessing my web site, and I am a bit uncomfortable that I then get messages effectively telling me that my software is poor and I should be using (buying?) something else. On 26/11/2008 02:12, "Kingsley Idehen" <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote: > > > Hugh Glaser wrote: >> I thought that might be the answer. >> So what is the ontology of the error, so that my SW application can deal with >> it appropriately? >> If it ainąt RDF it ainąt sensible in the Semantic Web. >> ;-| >> And the łentitlement˛ to spend lots of money by accident; a bit worrying, >> although I assume there are services that allow me to find out at least >> estimates of the cost. >> > If you are querying via iSQL or the Virtuoso Conductor you wont be > moving lots of data between your desktop and EC2. If you do large > constructs over the sparql protocol or anything else that produces large > HTTP workloads between EC2 and your location, then you will incur the > costs (btw - Amazon are quite aggressive re. the costs, so you really > have to be serving many client i.e., offering a service for costs being > a major concern). Er, yes, that was the question we were discussing. Large constructs over the sparql prototcol. With respect to costs, I never mentioned Amazon, so I am not sure why that is the benchmark for comparison. But I don't want to have a go at the Openlink software (I often recommend it to people); I was just asking about limitations. All software has limitations. > > Anyway, Virtuoso let's you control lots of things, including shutting > down the sparql endpoint. In addition, you will soon be able to offer > OAuth access to sparql endpoint etc.. Yes, and I didn't really want to have the overhead of interacting with Ravinder to explain why I had shut down his access to the SPARQL endpoint. >> I suspect that your comment about a bill is a bit of a joke, in that normal >> queries do not require money? >> But it does raise an interesting LOD question. >> Ravinder asked for LOD sets; if I have to pay for the query service, is it >> LOD? >> > You pay for traffic that goes in and out of your data space. > > (effective November 26, 2008) > Fixed Costs ($) <snip amazon costs/> > Here is a purchase link that also exposes the items above. > https://aws-portal.amazon.com/gp/aws/user/subscription/index.html?ie=UTF8&offe > ringCode=6CB89F71 > > Of course, you can always use the Open Source Edition as is and > reconstruct DBpedia from scratch, the cost-benefit analysis factors come > down to: > > 1. Construction and Commissioning time (1 - 1.5 hrs vs 16 - 22 hrs) > 2. On / Off edition variant of live DBpedia instance that's fully tuned > and in sync with the master >> Getting back to dealing with awkward queries. >> Detecting what are effectively DoS attacks is not always the easiest thing to >> do. >> Has Bezzo really solved it for a SPARQL endpoint while providing a useful >> service to users with a wide variety of requirements? >> > I believe so based on what we can do with Virtuoso on EC2. One major > example is the backup feature where we can sync from a Virtuoso instance > into S3 buckets. Then perform a restore from those buckets (what we do > re. DBpedia). In our case we offer HTTP/WebDAV or the S3 protocol for > bucket access. I don't think this contributes to helping to service complex SPARQL queries, or have I missed somthing? >> In fact, people donąt usually offer open SQL access to Open Databases for >> exactly this reason. >> I like to think the day will come when the Semantic Web is so widely used >> that we will have the same problem with SPARQL endpoints. >> > The Linked Data Web is going to take us way beyond anything SQL could > even fantasize about (imho). And one such fantasy is going to be > accessible sparql endpoints without bringing the house down :-) Now there I agree. The power of LD/SW or whatever you call it will indeed take us a long way further. And I agree on the fantasy, which is actually what I was saying all along. It is a fantasy to suggest that "you can do all the wrong you want". But I think it is sensible to take the question to a new thread... Best Hugh > > Kingsley
Received on Wednesday, 26 November 2008 20:52:56 UTC