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

Hugh,

Let's just look forward. This is not the same world, not the same game
and definitely not the same problem.
The comparison stops the minute you realize we now have billions of
computers connected, and a globally distributed DSN.

The trick is understanding that we are not exposing SQL endpoints,
standing on the shore and throwing stones at the ocean hoping to fill
it up. We are throwing powder jelly that will create solid land over
which we will be able to walk very soon. What we are doing is
assembling ONE big database, because we have ONE namespace that meshes
everything ( thanks to the URIs ) and one transport mechanism.

And the force that will "drive" us to open data is economic.

Your database contains facts that complement my records and we both
benefit from the mutual exchange, and this happens more efficiently in
an unplanned manner.

Serendipity and unplanned knowledge generation.

So, if you consider the URI and the WWW, the comparison between SPARQL
and SQL and Databases is not enough. However, I admit it is fair and
sometimes necessary at a micro-level.

The tech details will be solved in a snap. As you can see from
Kingsley's response, this is not a new problem, but rather a new
opportunity.

I guess the question is: Why would anyone open up their data before?
when the integration had to be done manually...

Best.,
A

On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 9:18 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
>>
>
>



-- 
Aldo Bucchi
U N I V R Z
Office: +56 2 795 4532
Mobile:+56 9 7623 8653
skype:aldo.bucchi
http://www.univrz.com/
http://aldobucchi.com

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This message is only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is
addressed and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If
you are not the intended recipient, please do not distribute or copy this
communication, by e-mail or otherwise. Instead, please notify us immediately by
return e-mail.
INFORMACIÓN PRIVILEGIADA Y CONFIDENCIAL
Este mensaje está destinado sólo a la persona u organización al cual está
dirigido y podría contener información privilegiada y confidencial. Si usted no
es el destinatario, por favor no distribuya ni copie esta comunicación, por
email o por otra vía. Por el contrario, por favor notifíquenos inmediatamente
vía e-mail.

Received on Thursday, 27 November 2008 01:40:48 UTC