Re: Q about reconciliation query batch size

Yes, my earlier message was unclear (or even grossly misleading): this
should totally be configurable by the service, for instance in the manifest.

Antonin

On 15/06/2020 22:31, David Newbury wrote:
>
> I would lean towards either an advertisable value or a standard error
> pattern.  Different systems will have radically different load
> patterns, and we probably don’t want to accidently prevent people from
> building systems in ways that make sense.
>
>  
>
> — David 
>
>  
>
> *David Newbury*, Enterprise Software Architect  |  The J. Paul Getty
> Trust |  (310) 440 6116  |  getty.edu <http://www.getty.edu/>
>
>  
>
> ../../Getty_Logo_EmailSig.png
>
>  
>
> *From: *Antonin Delpeuch <antonin@delpeuch.eu>
> *Date: *Saturday, June 13, 2020 at 11:56 PM
> *To: *"public-reconciliation@w3.org" <public-reconciliation@w3.org>
> *Subject: *Re: Q about reconciliation query batch size
> *Resent-From: *<public-reconciliation@w3.org>
> *Resent-Date: *Saturday, June 13, 2020 at 11:55 PM
>
>  
>
>  
>
> On 11/06/2020 17:58, Ford, Kevin wrote:
>
>      I’m familiar in an academic sense with OpenRefine, but not
>     whether it might control the size of query batches to ensure a
>     provider is not overwhelmed.  That said, if this work is to become
>     a more generic way to provide reconciliation or suggest services
>     to be used by software other than OpenRefine, then it still seems
>     this should be an advertiseable/controllable value since one
>     cannot always count on the client being responsible.
>
> I think it would make sense to improve the specs on this: for
> instance, to specify a maximum batch size beyond which the service
> will refuse to respond to requests.
>
> Antonin
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Getty. Do not
> click links or open attachments unless you verify the sender and know
> the content is safe.*
>
>
>