- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 10:49:41 +0100
- To: Giovanni Tummarello <giovanni.tummarello@deri.org>
- Cc: Jörn Hees <j_hees@cs.uni-kl.de>, public-lod <public-lod@w3.org>
On 5 Aug 2010, at 09:10, Giovanni Tummarello wrote: > "linked data" with plain dereferenciable URIs it plain doesnt work > once you > move from the simplest examples. Let's make that: The simplest style of linked data doesn't work once you move from the simplest examples. > Only solution for you now is to use SPARQL instead of resolving the > URI. > Much less traffic and it would actually work SPARQL doesn't make the problem go away, it just pushes the limits further out. SPARQL endpoints that see significant traffic have similar restrictions built in, either on query complexity or query runtime or number of results. So you might hit the limit at 16000 statements rather than 2000 or whatever. > or ask the HTML side, if there is RDFa bingo DBpedia has RDFa in the HTML pages. The problem has actually been discussed by Tim in his original article that introduced the “Linked Data” idea: See [1], section “Limitations on browseable data”, onwards from “Other times, the number of arcs makes it impractical.” (You know, that's further down in the article, and most people who talk about linked data stopped reading after the Four Principles... ;-) You'd probably have to add a pagination vocabulary as well. This is of course something that publishers would have to adopt, so it doesn't immediately help Jörn. Best, Richard [1] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html
Received on Thursday, 5 August 2010 09:50:15 UTC