Re: Inclusion of additional (non dereferencable) data?

On 11 Jun 2010, at 11:38, Nathan wrote:

>>> 
>>> :me foaf:knows <http://example.org/joe_bloggs#me> .
>>> 
>>> <http://example.org/joe_bloggs#me> a foaf:Person ;
>>>   foaf:name "Joe Bloggs"@en .
>> This is ok by me. Adding more information is useful, as
>> mentioned as it helps reduce connections. If you had a 1000 in your foaf file without any information, your client would
>> need to make 1000 calls to get the info.
> 
> In all honesty, I'd probably not use a client that showed me 1000 connections at a time, paging is vital when displaying information to humans so as to prevent information overload - caveat that as soon as you include 'order by' clauses to the view then all that dereferencing comes back in to play..

Yes, but even have 30 connections could slow things down.

I think adding the name and a bit of info is perfectly ok. It is a way for someone to say what they hold as core to their knowledge of the remote resource. For  example on the foaf-protocols mailing list, people have often suggested that adding the public key of someone you know, could help trigger alerts when someone changes their key.

In any case this points to the reason for why named graphs are so important.

>> 
>> Pragmatically there is no need to make a big fuss about this.
> 
> Concur, no need for a big fuss, personally feel it was worth a quick bit of open discussion and consideration so we don't blindly fall in to certain patterns without first considering the future effects, namely the discussion we're having now.

Sorry, I did not mean to imply you were making a fuss :-)

Received on Friday, 11 June 2010 10:03:44 UTC