W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > November 2008

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

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 21:57:45 -0500
Message-ID: <492F5E29.6020405@openlinksw.com>
CC: "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>

Aldo Bucchi wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 6:42 PM, Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Thanks Aldo.
>> Interesting points.
>> However..
>> On 27/11/2008 16:47, "Aldo Bucchi" <aldo.bucchi@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> All,
>>> A simple metadata on this therad, from my POV.
>>> I am obviously missing some more thorough analysis.
>>> What I intend to show is just how this discussions usually tend to be
>>> too broad and get dispersed.
>>> I asked a colleague ( he is a PhD, very smart guy ) to tell me what he
>>> thinks. He's pretty much in line with me.
>>> * Hugh is worried about *why* would anyone go through the problems of
>>> publishing their data and points out some problems
>> Sorry, I must have misled you.
>> I take as an absolute working hypothesis that when people (including me)
>> publish their data, we will get fascinating emergent properties the like of
>> which we can only dimly guess at.
>> I will be very unhappy to see this hypothesis disproved (if that is
>> possible), but am working with might and main to try to avid that outcome.
>> I have published a lot of data, and kept hacking the system to conform to
>> the latest LOD best practice (even when I have felt it was not necessarily
>> the best way to proceed).
>> I would guess that the majority of people on this lost have a similar view,
>> since this is not the place I expect people who have rejected the hypothesis
>> to feel comfortable.
>> I can't think of what I said that gave you such a negative impression, and
>> am sorry I did, because it doesn't help to have such misunderstandings.
>> I do, however, think it is useful to discuss possible barriers to the
>> exciting new world we are all trying to build. That is what I think thi list
>> is for.
> ( sorry I am copying this, sent it in private )
> Hugh,
> Oh I am not saying you are against this, like anyone else in this
> group you are evidently pushing this forward.
> This is just a debate excercise right?
> Not trying to second guess your intentions.
> Please all I tried to point out is exactly that.
> We are using this list to debate in public.
> Do we want to debate in public?
> If we do, perfect.
> But beware that we are bouncing people off because, gee, take a look
> at the level of the discussions!
> People just want to know what this big cloud of data is, what they can
> get out of it, how to use it, etc.
> Or else we will fall back again into the SW obscure alley.
> I am risking getting bullied in the list for pointing this out, but I
> think it is worth it.
> We are making some progress here in terms of world PR.
> Best,
> A
>> Hope that helps the interactions.
>> Best
>> Hugh

Orri just dropped this blog post:

Bottom line, scalability of RDF DBMS engines is a DBMS matter.

The Linked Data is a Reality, we just need to get on with the "How" part 
since we are clearly done with the "What" and "Why" :-)

I am more focused and interested in the demonstration of the practical 
and tangible virtues of the Linked Data Web.

We have a Federated Object Database in the form of the "Linked Data 
Web", we just need some user level solution in front that share 
characteristics with: MS ACCESS, Crystal Reports, Filemaker, DBASE, 
Paradox etc., en route to making the "How" a little more palpable.

On our part, EC2 provides something we've desperately needed as part of 
our roadmap and vision.



Kingsley Idehen	      Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
President & CEO 
OpenLink Software     Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Received on Friday, 28 November 2008 02:58:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:20:43 UTC