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

Amazon Web Services <http://aws.amazon.com> platform offers one solution, I
think people will soon begin to realize that data access in the SW comes
with a small cost, and that cost can mainly be absorbed by the consumer. If
the user is deriving any utility from the data they consume, then they
should be willing to (at the least) pay for the physical resources for
delivering that data. AWS-like services allow users to pay pennies for
access to data, and such a model is conducive to bringing new applications
onto the semantic web with minimum cost to the user.

-sherman

On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 6:47 PM, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com>wrote:

> 2008/11/27 Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
> I don't think we can afford to offer the actual public grade infrastructure
> for free unless there is corporate backing for particular endpoints.
> However, we can still tentatively roll out SPARQL endpoints and resolvers in
> mirror configurations together with software which can round robin across
> the endpoints to get information without overloading a particular endpoint
> to at least get some redundancy and figure out what needs to be done to fine
> tune the methods for distributed queries. Once you have the ability to round
> robin across sparql endpoints and still choose them intelligently based on a
> knowledge of what is inside each one you can distribute the source RDF to
> anyone and have them give back the information about how to access the
> endpoint, and if people are found to be overloading an endpoint send them a
> polite message to either round robin across the available endpoints or get
> their own local SPARQL installation which can be configured to respond to
> work the same as the public endpoint.
>
> An example implementation of this functionality is the distribution of
> queries across endpoints for Bio2RDF [1] which together with the
> distribution of a combination of Virtuoso DB files [2] and source NTriples
> files [3] make it relatively simple for people to download the software [4],
> and the resolver package and redirect the configuration file to their own
> local versions for large scale private use of semantics using exactly the
> same URI's that resolve using a combination of the publically available
> resolvers which may or may not be contacting public SPARQL endpoints. An
> example of a public resolver contacting a combination of public and private
> SPARQL endpoints is [5]. (Please don't go and overload it though because as
> Hugh says, the threat of overloading is quite real for any particular
> endpoint :) ).
>
> I do agree that arbitrary SPARQL queries should be localised to private
> installations, but before you do that you have to provide easy ways for
> people to get private installations which resolve URI's in the same way that
> they are in the public web.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Peter
>
> [1] http://bio2rdf.mquter.qut.edu.au/admin/configuration/rdfxml
> [2] http://quebec.bio2rdf.org/download/virtuoso/indexed/
> [3] http://quebec.bio2rdf.org/download/n3/
> [4] http://sourceforge.net/project/platformdownload.php?group_id=142631
> [5] http://bio2rdf.mquter.qut.edu.au/
>



-- 

Thanks,
-sherman

I pray that you may prosper in all things and be healthy, even as your soul
prospers
(3 John 1:2)