Re: Can we afford to offer SPARQL endpoints when we are successful? (Was "linked data hosted somewhere")

Hugh,

Nice point brought up.

What I do see is that even though we can't make a sql query to the facebook
db, we can use the api's to obtain data. Same as some many different
applications that offer api.

Now imagine LOD as the data that a developer can obtain from an api. In this
case, instead of learning the api of several different applications, he
learns the vocabulary. The same way nowadays developers get the data from
different apis to make mashups, LOD is another form of making mashups, but
much better.

I agree that having a sparql endpoint for everyhting may not be safe. That
is why we started thinking about SQUIN [1]. If the data is out there, it is
linked, it is dereferenacble, and it's open, well make the query on SQUIN,
and let SQUIN get the data for you.

My two cents and my vision on the LOD

[1] http://squin.sourceforge.net/
Juan Sequeda, Ph.D Student

Research Assistant
Dept. of Computer Sciences
The University of Texas at Austin
http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~jsequeda
jsequeda@cs.utexas.edu

http://www.juansequeda.com/

Semantic Web in Austin: http://juansequeda.blogspot.com/


On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 6:18 PM, Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:

>
> Prompted by the thread on "linked data hosted somewhere" I would like to
> ask
> the above question that has been bothering me for a while.
>
> The only reason anyone can afford to offer a SPARQL endpoint is because it
> doesn't get used too much?
>
> As abstract components for studying interaction, performance, etc.:
> DB=KB, SQL=SPARQL.
> In fact, I often consider the components themselves interchangeable; that
> is, the first step of the migration to SW technologies for an application
> is
> to take an SQL-based back end and simply replace it with a SPARQL/RDF back
> end and then carry on.
>
> However.
> No serious DB publisher gives direct SQL access to their DB (I think).
> There are often commercial reasons, of course.
> But even when there are not (the Open in LOD), there are only search
> options
> and possibly download facilities.
> Even government organisations that have a remit to publish their data don't
> offer SQL access.
>
> Will we not have to do the same?
> Or perhaps there is a subset of SPARQL that I could offer that will allow
> me
> to offer a "safer" service that conforms to other's safer service (so it is
> well-understood?
> Is this defined, or is anyone working on it?
>
> And I am not referring to any particular software - it seems to me that
> this
> is something that LODers need to worry about.
> We aim to take over the world; and if SPARQL endpoints are part of that
> (maybe they aren't - just resolvable URIs?), then we should make damn sure
> that we think they can be delivered.
>
> My answer to my subject question?
> No, not as it stands. And we need to have a story to replace it.
>
> Best
> Hugh
>
> =======================
> Sorry if this is a second copy, but the first, sent as a new post, seemed
> to
> only elicit a message from <list-help@frink.w3.org> and I can't work out
> or
> find out whether it means the message was rejected or something else, such
> as awaiting moderation.
> So I've done this as a reply.
> =======================
> And now a response to the message from Aldo, done here to reduce traffic:
>
> Very generous of you to write in this way.
> And yes, humour is good.
> And sorry to all for the traffic.
>
> On 27/11/2008 00:02, "Aldo Bucchi" <aldo.bucchi@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > OK Hugh,
> >
> > I see what you mean and I understand you being upset. Just re-read the
> > conversation word by word because I felt something was not right.
> > I did say "wacky"... is that it?
> >
> > In that case, and if this caused the confusion, I am really sorry.
> >
> > I was not talking about your software, this was just a joke. Talking in
> > general.
> > You replied to my joke with an absurd reply.
> >
> > My point was simply that, if you want to push things over the edge,
> > why not get your own box. We all take care of our infrastructure and
> > know its limitations.
> >
> > So, I formally apologize.
> > I am by no means endorsing one piece of software over another ( save
> > for mine, but it does't exist yet ;).
> > My preferences for virtuoso come from experiential bias.
> >
> > I hope this clears things up.
> > I apologize for the traffic.
> >
> > However, I do make a formal request for some sense of humor.
> > This list tends to get into this kind of discussions, and we will
> > start getting more and more visits from outsiders who are not used to
> > this sort of "sharpness".
> >
> > Best,
> > A
> >
>
>
>