Re: triple Indexing for Apps like Cimba

Concept came from HTTPA.

I posted about it quickly here [1]. Wiki has a short entry about it here
[2] also.

Perhaps the other means would be to use sparql end-points. Quick search
yielded [3]

Another concept for RWW is the capacity to build your own ontologies.

Consider that BitCoin technologies have created this market of 'miners',
who have practically implemented H/W for the purpose of resourcing
knowledge from available data, as applied in block-chain technology.   As
the flux in value for bitcoin [4] changes, it's noted that at times it
becomes uneconomical to continue to leave the machines on, as the business
system is applied specifically to ASIC or related algorithmic services.

I am thinking about it as i'm not sure how the agent mechanics would work,
if decentralised.  My feeling is that existing search companies will still
play an important role, and that they've been refactoring for sometime to
adjust to the needs of Web3.

all of the solutions I can think of involve trust.  Trust without
accountability doesn't really work. So, the work by Oshani (and her team)
on HTTPA continues to provide me an inspired way of thinking about
solutions for the area.

Tim.H.

[1]
http://www.webcivics.net/oshani_seneviratne_httpa_http_with_accountability
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTPA
[3] http://sparqles.okfn.org/availability
[4] http://bitcointicker.co/

On 20 January 2015 at 14:09, Brent Shambaugh <brent.shambaugh@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Tim,
>
> I think I ran across a couple of papers about this.  Maybe this was it?
> Basically, semantics actually help DHT as they are kind of naiive. Hoping
> to get back to this.
>
> Loser, Alexander et al., Semantic Social Overlay Networks, IEEE Journal on
> Selected Areas in Communication, Vol. 25, No. 1, January 2007,
>
> http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.72.7668&rep=rep1&type=pdf
>
> -Brent Shambaugh
>
> Website: bshambaugh.org
>
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Timothy Holborn <
> timothy.holborn@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Interesting..
>>
>> I ponder the use of DHT perhaps, yet not sure about the likely size...
>>
>> Webizen is a service[0]/repo[1]
>>
>> Assuming RWW Clustering Accounts (ie: provider / subdomains, et.al),
>> perhaps the base-install uses a look-up service, which is pointed, like a
>> time-server...?  no-point decentralising on an account level.
>>
>> Equally, one might consider that the server would index it's own record,
>> and perhaps a relationship graph out to an  var. int.
>>
>> Melvin's been dealing with decentralised block-chain storage.  I imagine
>> this is a similar challenge.
>>
>> [0] http://webizen.org/
>> [1] https://github.com/linkeddata/webizen
>>
>> Tim.H.
>>
>> On 19 January 2015 at 04:18, Brent Shambaugh <brent.shambaugh@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Andrei (and others in the reply all?),
>>>
>>> Last year you gave a talk about cimba.co at MIT. During the Q&A there
>>> was some discussion about what sort of index or triple retrieval mechanism
>>> there would be. Sandro Hawke put up the talk, which I linked to here [0]. I
>>> was wondering if you came up with something.
>>>
>>> Thanks for your time.
>>>
>>> My thoughts:
>>>
>>> From what I have read, it is difficult to index everything. The best you
>>> can do is index triples that are "important"that will eventually lead you
>>> to less important triples that you might want.
>>>
>>> Perhaps this is accomplished by some form of semantic clustering?
>>> Perhaps this clustering is accomplished by some sort of distributed RDF
>>> store, such as Swarm Linda [1]. Or perhaps this clustering is accomplished
>>> by only indexing the names of linked data containers with some sort of
>>> description about what they are about. Or perhaps, collections, which seem
>>> to have less structure defined about what they are about and can exist
>>> (iirc) at multiple Network nodes with different ownership, are described in
>>> some way and cleaned up to be more query able using swarm intelligence
>>> provided by Swarm Linda, or something similar like building a Folksonomy
>>> with Twitter tags [2]. I might need to compare these more, but it seems you
>>> are looking at semantic and syntactic similarities where the semantic
>>> similarities need some sort of global reference to make things more
>>> manageable/possible.
>>> For the index you either need some sort of centralized index or
>>> decentralized index. If being a purist in decentralization is desired even
>>> YaCy won't do since there are 4 nodes that are not decentralized [3]. Not
>>> knowing much, there may be times when you want a centralized index. Perhaps
>>> P2P would introduce too much latency and use too much bandwidth in the
>>> network. Perhaps sometimes you want P2P because you are constructing a Mesh
>>> Network where you might even want local versions of some ontologies because
>>> you are closed off for some reason.
>>> [0]
>>> http://adistributedeconomy.blogspot.com/2014/12/links-to-building-social-applications.html?m=1
>>> [1]
>>> http://www.mi.fu-berlin.de/inf/publications/techreports/tr2009/B-09-04/TR-B-09-04.pdf?1346662692
>>> [2]
>>> http://people.kmi.open.ac.uk/motta/papers/SpeciaMotta_ESWC-2007_Final.pdf
>>> [3] https://fedcsis.org/proceedings/2011/pliks/237.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>