- From: Gray, Alasdair J G <A.J.G.Gray@hw.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 12:29:11 +0000
- To: Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@graphity.org>
- CC: public-lod <public-lod@w3.org>, "public-declarative-apps@w3.org" <public-declarative-apps@w3.org>, James Anderson <james@dydra.com>, "Arto Bendiken" <arto@dydra.com>
- Message-ID: <71549C33-CFD5-478F-8A11-32730C701CA3@hw.ac.uk>
Hi Option 3 seems sensible, particularly if you keep them in separate graphs. However shouldn’t you consider the provenance of the sources and prioritise them on how recent they were updated? Alasdair On 8 Jun 2016, at 13:06, Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@graphity.org<mailto:martynas@graphity.org>> wrote: Hey all, we are developing software that consumes data both from Linked Data and SPARQL endpoints. Most of the time, these technologies complement each other. We've come across an issue though, which occurs in situations where RDF description of the same resources is available using both of them. Lest take a resource http://data.semanticweb.org/person/andy-seaborne as an example. Its RDF description is available in at least 2 locations: - on a SPARQL endpoint: http://xmllondon.com/sparql?query=DESCRIBE%20%3Chttp%3A%2F%2Fdata.semanticweb.org%2Fperson%2Fandy-seaborne%3E - as Linked Data: http://data.semanticweb.org/person/andy-seaborne/rdf These descriptions could be identical (I haven't checked), but it is more likely than not that they're out of sync, complementary, or possibly even contradicting each other, if reasoning is considered. If a software agent has access to both the SPARQL endpoint and Linked Data resource, what should it consider as the resource description? There are at least 3 options: 1. prioritize SPARQL description over Linked Data 2. prioritize Linked Data description over SPARQL 3. merge both descriptions I am leaning towards #3 as the sensible solution. But then I think the end-user should be informed which part of the description came from which source. This would be problematic if the descriptions are triples only, but should be doable with quads. That leads to another problem however, that both LD and SPARQL responses are under-specified in terms of quads. What do you think? Maybe this is a well-known issue, in which case please enlighten me with some articles :) Martynas atomgraph.com @atomgraphhq Alasdair J G Gray Fellow of the Higher Education Academy Assistant Professor in Computer Science, School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences (Athena SWAN Bronze Award) Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh UK. Email: A.J.G.Gray@hw.ac.uk<mailto:A.J.G.Gray@hw.ac.uk> Web: http://www.macs.hw.ac.uk/~ajg33 ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5711-4872 Office: Earl Mountbatten Building 1.39 Twitter: @gray_alasdair Founded in 1821, Heriot-Watt is a leader in ideas and solutions. With campuses and students across the entire globe we span the world, delivering innovation and educational excellence in business, engineering, design and science. The contents of this e-mail (including any attachments) are confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of its contents is strictly prohibited, and you should please notify the sender immediately and then delete it (including any attachments) from your system.
Received on Wednesday, 8 June 2016 12:29:48 UTC