W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > March 2016

Re: LinkedMDB dump?

From: Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@graphity.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 08:08:46 +0000
Message-ID: <CAE35Vmx6nnNpAf3poaN25btf4dTNtZE3Doxc-MQ4s8gtp0_5uw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Wouter Beek <w.g.j.beek@vu.nl>
Cc: Jean-Claude Moissinac <jean-claude.moissinac@telecom-paristech.fr>, Luca Matteis <lmatteis@gmail.com>, Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, Paul Groth <p.groth@elsevier.com>
Still not getting you :)

Maybe we should not promote SPARQL as data dump access method, but we
should still promote it as a query language. Both are important access

Instead of discouraging developers from using SPARQL endpoints, data
provoders should set up the missing dumps (or the way around). That way
data can be acessed as queries *and* as dumps, depending on the use case.

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 at 09:00, Wouter Beek <w.g.j.beek@vu.nl> wrote:

> ​Hi Martynas,​
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Martynas Jusevičius <
> martynas@graphity.org> wrote:
>> To provide only one of those might not be enough, but it does not mean a
>> query technology breaks the open data agenda?
> ​I fully agree.  If Open Data is already disseminated as LDF or datadump
> then it is a ​bonus to also have a SPARQL endpoint next to it.
> However, there are many SPARQL endpoints out there today that do not (yet)
> have an LDF or datadump equivalent sitting next to them.  Those SPARQL
> endpoints do not implement the Open Data agenda, since they often enforce
> limits.
> ​The point I'm raising is that we should not promote a technology that we
> know in practice violates the very important requirement of being able to
> obtain all the data.​
> ---
> Best,
> Wouter Beek.
> Email: w.g.j.beek@vu.nl
> WWW: wouterbeek.com
> Tel: +31647674624
Received on Friday, 11 March 2016 08:09:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:45 UTC