- From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 08:48:24 -0500
- To: <editor@content-wire.com>
- Cc: <semantic-web@w3c.org>
- Message-Id: <0E9506C7-5972-4BDF-AEBC-ADD745A29BA3@w3.org>
There are several snapshots of it at http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://copia.ogbuji.net/blog/2005-10-28/Addressing the latest being at http://web.archive.org/web/20070608070115/http://copia.ogbuji.net/blog/2005-10-28/Addressing Lucky Brewster is looking after this web thing when other people let bits rot :) Seems to be Uche's. I'd note that the thesis of his post, that stores don't scale beyond 5-10 million triples, is hard to defend given the 5-10 trillion triple stores kicking around. Tim On 2008-01 -27, at 07:48, <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] > > http://copia.ogbuji.net/blog/2005-10-28/Addressing > > > > > > >
Received on Sunday, 27 January 2008 13:48:31 UTC