- From: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
- Date: Sun, 29 May 2011 17:29:39 +0100
- To: W3C SPARQL WG comments <public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org>
- Cc: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
All, This is a comment concerning the Last Call Working Draft 'SPARQL 1.1 Update' [1]. It is clearly written and, AFAICT sound. However, I have an issue with it - more on the conceptual level. I tried to express my concerns in a blog post [2] and will do my best to summarise in the following. While the proposed update language - without any doubt - is perfectly suitable for 'small to medium'-sized setups, I fear that we will run into troubles in large-scale deployments concerning the costs for updating and deleting huge volumes of triples. Now, I wish I had experimental evidence myself to proof this (and I have to admit I don't have), but I would like the WG to consider to either include a section discussing the issue, or setting up a (non-REC Track) document that discusses this (which could be titled 'implementation/usage advices for large-scale deployments' or the like). I do feel strongly about this and would offer to contribute to such a document, if desired. I'd very much appreciate it if WG members would be able to point me to own experiences in this field (experiments or real-world deployments alike). Cheers, Michael (with my DERI AC Rep and RDB2RDF WG co-chair hat off) [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-sparql11-update-20110512/ [2] http://webofdata.wordpress.com/2011/05/29/ye-shall-not-delete-data/ -- Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway Ireland, Europe Tel. +353 91 495730 http://linkeddata.deri.ie/ http://sw-app.org/about.html
Received on Sunday, 29 May 2011 16:30:08 UTC