- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 12:29:18 +0100
- To: Story Henry <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- CC: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Story Henry wrote: > 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. Hmm, the reality of the current web is often surprising, for instance if you check out the 'page' http://techcrunch.com/ you'll find 1.858 mb of data comprising 279 different resources. Compare, 1.858 mb of RDF from 279 different graphs.. that's a hell of a lot and more than workable. > 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 :-) Didn't presume you had, and likewise! :-) Nathan
Received on Friday, 11 June 2010 11:30:28 UTC