W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > September 2018

Re: Release of SAGE 1.0: a stable, responsive and unrestricted SPARQL query server

From: Pascal Molli <pascal.molli@univ-nantes.fr>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 16:35:22 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPKVQuNmurkNbu+RrMwBBo0Y9SJ1rDygGY+RGqmdQ5vsafN_dg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Cc: public-lod@w3.org
Dear all,

Thanks all for this nice discussion.

Our key message is that it is possible to build a performant public LOD
server that ensures stability, responsiveness
and complete results for any SPARQL query.

By using quotas, SPARQL endpoints ensure stability and responsiveness but
sacrifice completeness.
One approach to solve this problem is to decompose a query  into a
set of subqueries that terminate under quotas with complete
results (Limit/Offset...). This approach raises a major issue: how to
ensure that such decomposition exists for any query?  This requires to
evaluate the execution time
of a query and the number of results on a server with an unknown load.
Consequently, it seems
impossible to me to build a server that ensures stability, responsiveness
and completeness for
any query following the W3C SPARQL protocol.

As pointed out by Ruben, TPF and SaGE execute SPARQL query without
following the W3C SPARQL protocol.
By changing the server interface,  they ensure stability, responsiveness
and completeness of any query. Compared to TPF,
SaGE reduces drastically data transfer and execution time thanks to BGP
support on server side.

Now if we compare SaGe and Virtuoso *without quotas*, we demonstrated that
Virtuoso is not stable, and is outperformed
by SaGe when the load is increasing.

Any feedback is welcome.

--
Pascal

On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 at 23:49, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:

> On 9/9/18 4:20 PM, Hugh Glaser wrote:
> > So I don't understand why you seem obsessed with the idea that these
> researchers should give you access to use their resources, when what you
> presumably want to do is repeat their experiments in your own environment
> and control, so you can be confident off the results.
>
>
> I never said or insinuated that.
>
> I just wanted them to clarify their key message, which is confusing for
> a variety of reasons already outlined.
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Kingsley Idehen
> Founder & CEO
> OpenLink Software   (Home Page: http://www.openlinksw.com)
>
> Weblogs (Blogs):
> Legacy Blog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen/
> Blogspot Blog: http://kidehen.blogspot.com
> Medium Blog: https://medium.com/@kidehen
>
> Profile Pages:
> Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/kidehen/
> Quora: https://www.quora.com/profile/Kingsley-Uyi-Idehen
> Twitter: https://twitter.com/kidehen
> Google+: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>
> Web Identities (WebID):
> Personal: http://kingsley.idehen.net/public_home/kidehen/profile.ttl#i
>         :
> http://id.myopenlink.net/DAV/home/KingsleyUyiIdehen/Public/kingsley.ttl#this
>
>
>

-- 
Pascal Molli <http://pagesperso.lina.univ-nantes.fr/~molli-p>
Full Professor, Nantes University <http://www.univ-nantes.fr/>
Head of GDD <https://sites.google.com/site/gddlina/>* team*, LS2N
<http://ls2n.fr/>,
UFR de Sciences et Techniques
2, rue de la Houssinière
BP 92208
44322 NANTES CEDEX 3
Tel : +33 251125810
pascal.molli@univ-nantes.fr
Received on Monday, 10 September 2018 14:35:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:22:47 UTC