W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > November 2010

Re: Enquire - WWW - Semantic Desktop/PersonalDataWiki? do you agree?

From: adasal <adam.saltiel@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 10:46:13 +0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTiktNb7L=gF2-St+XcNeQcm=3T-udaE6+9aKaJ=P@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stephen Williams <sdw@lig.net>, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, ProjectParadigm-ICT-Program <metadataportals@yahoo.com>, Leo Sauermann <leo.sauermann@gnowsis.com>, SWIG <semantic-web@w3.org>, Juan Sequeda <juanfederico@gmail.com>
Hi Stephen
I will look at the reference and come back to you. I understand you to
be indicating that the triple store back end in the Berlin benchmarks
is a naïve implementation. Have I understood? If so could you
elaborate? Are there OS alternatives? Without reading through again I
thought it was Jena backed by Postgres. I thought Jena was acting as
an ORM autocreating the table schema. As I say I don't have info in
front of me. Every bit of knowledge here is a valuable nugget at the
moment. Thanks. Adam

On 22/11/2010, Stephen Williams <sdw@lig.net> wrote:
> On 11/22/10 2:01 PM, adasal wrote:
>> On 22 November 2010 18:19, Stephen Williams <sdw@lig.net
>> <mailto:sdw@lig.net>> wrote:
>>
>>     Getting the enabling technology and paradigms right is a prerequisite
>> for such a solution, but they are not sufficient.
>>      Jumping beyond our current plateau is going to take more than the
>> simple application veneer that were enough for most
>>     generations of solutions.  Too many people are constrained to thinking
>> in the language of existing software elements.  This
>>     shows even with techies by the slow adoption of triplestores / SPARQL
>> / et al vs. RDBMS systems, which are clearly deficient.
>>
>>
>> They are not in the least obviously deficient. They are extremely
>> efficient and timely in what they deliver. Triple store returns
>> results in slow motion compared to RDBS. Look at the Berlin benchmarks.
>
> Not all applications are performance intensive.  Sometimes, the worst
> bottlenecks are development, evolution, flexibility, and
> maintenance.  RDBMS is a poor model for many things, with current
> applications force fitting models into it.  In the March Berlin
> benchmark [1], if you look at the D2R SPARQL->RDBMS mapping, you can see one
> solution to having an efficient SPARQL database.  It's
> not the model that is bad, it is the naive implementation.  We are certainly
> going to find multiple solutions to data clustering
> that will provide high performance.  Another thing to keep in mind is that
> the market moved from hierarchical databases to
> relational even though there was a performance loss.
>
>> Notice what project inspired those benchmarks.
>> Where is this plateau I am jumping beyond? I'm not sure I have reached it
>> yet.
>> This is the language of a convinced evangelist. But it isn't a convincing
>> rational argument.
>>
>> Adam
> [1]
> http://www4.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/bizer/BerlinSPARQLBenchmark/results/index.html
>
> Stephen
> --
> Stephen D. Williams sdw@lig.net stephendwilliams@gmail.com LinkedIn:
> http://sdw.st/in V:650-450-UNIX (8649) V:866.SDW.UNIX
> V:703.371.9362 F:703.995.0407 AIM:sdw Skype:StephenDWilliams Yahoo:sdwlignet
> Resume: http://sdw.st/gres Personal: http://sdw.st
> facebook.com/sdwlig twitter.com/scienteer
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device
Received on Tuesday, 23 November 2010 10:46:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:41:24 UTC