Re: LOD Cloud Cache Stats

>
> My target audience is interested in DBMS scalability with regards to RDF
> data ingestion, indexing, and publication. You, as far as I can gather are
> more interested in idealism
>

I'm interested in making computers do a better job of helping humans make
sense of data. So yes, I care about data quality and software usability,
without which DBMS scalability is useless. I don't think this constitutes
"idealism".

I think this might be your first post series to the LOD mailing list
>

Nope. Not even the first involving you.

, and you make a quantum leap re. assumptions about what I am demonstrating
> or why I released the stats spreadsheets.
>

Er, no. I understand exactly what you're *trying* to demonstrate.

Yes, and most of the folks you refer to on these mailing lists (esp.
> Semantic Web segment) already know the entire paper is about the stuff OWL
> handles very well.
>

Yes, and if you spent a year or three going through dbpedia and replacing
all the untyped strings with typed nodes, and asserting all the missing
owl:sameAs statements, it would probably be a much improved dataset. But
this is like saying "Nails hold things together, therefore they're the best
way to build a great bridge", and then pointing at a bad bridge made with
nails. The bad bridge doesn't prove you can't build a good bridge with
nails, but neither does it prove you can.

But I'll broaden my question: who is using the LOD cloud for anything other
than learning SPARQL syntax or demonstrating Virtuoso? I don't mean this
rhetorically, I really want to know.

glenn