- From: Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 13:11:12 +0000
- To: "editor@content-wire.com" <editor@content-wire.com>, "semantic-web@w3c.org" <semantic-web@w3c.org>
Yes, the blog has gone, but Google cache still has it: http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:6x6nhmZInsYJ:copia.ogbuji.net/blog/keyword/rdf%2Bdatabase+%22performance+analysis+made+across+RDF+implementations%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1 Looks like the guy at http://www.xml.com/pub/au/89 Who runs metacognition, which has links to the dead blog. http://metacognition.info/Publications My comments?: It's pretty hard to construct a graph of any interest with more nodes than edges. Triple size is usually 3, but can often be 4 (especially for sufficiently large values of 3). On 27/1/08 12:48, "editor@content-wire.com" <editor@content-wire.com> wrote: Hello again... I wonder if anyone has any comment on the quote below - I have lost the author of the quote, cannot access the post anymore anyone on this list is to be credited for this? anyone disagrees? thanks PDM The size of a graph is the number of edges and the order of a graph is the number of nodes within the graph. RDF is a Resource Description Framework (to represent what is known about a resource) so it's not surprising that RDF graphs will almost always have a much larger size than order. It's also not surprising that most performance analysis made across RDF implementations focus mostly on triple size.[i] <mhtml:mid://00007140/#_edn1> http://copia.ogbuji.net/blog/2005-10-28/Addressing
Received on Sunday, 27 January 2008 13:12:01 UTC