W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > August 2010

Re: Linked Data and IRI dereferencing (scale limits?)

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 10:49:41 +0100
Cc: Jörn Hees <j_hees@cs.uni-kl.de>, public-lod <public-lod@w3.org>
Message-Id: <313D54CF-5EBA-4159-8F1E-C9763365A91B@cyganiak.de>
To: Giovanni Tummarello <giovanni.tummarello@deri.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.


[1] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html
Received on Thursday, 5 August 2010 09:50:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:21:04 UTC