Re: what triple bloat? [was: RDFCore WG minutes for the telecon 2002-08-02 (rdf doc, datatypes)]

Jos, I tend to agree with you.  But I think we need to take seriously 
Mike's concerns, dealing as he does with very large triple stores.

For the process, is this a request to correct the minutes, or a new 
discussion thread?

#g
--

At 10:35 PM 8/2/02 +0200, Jos De_Roo wrote:

>[...]
>
> > 8) Datatypes
> >
> > Discussion of Guha's proposal to concentrate on local typing only;  his
> > basic position is that we are signally failing to make progress on
>"global
> > idiom", but it would be highly unsatisfactory to publish without a way
>to
> > express (say) that some given literal is a number.
> >
> > Mike and Frank expressed a desire for the global idiom to be available.
> > We believe that PatrickS (in absentia) strongly desires global idiom.
> > DanC asked to explore going to last call without any datatyping.
> >
> > Guha clarifies:  proposal is to start with local idiom, allow
> > application-specific or other layers to add global idiom;  i.e. not to
>rule
> > it out completely.
> >
> > MikeD raises two objections:  local idiom adds triple-bloat;  local
>idiom
> > privides noi way for schema to say that a particular data type is
>expected
> > for a given property.
> > Guha clarifies:  "local idiom" means some way of specifying the type of
>a
> > particular literal, not necessarily extra triples.  In particular, allow
> > literals to include things other than strings.
> >
> > Jeremy:  what does graph look like with local typing?
> >
> > (Jeremy?):  restricting ourselves to local typing is one thing, but
>there's
> > also the issue of tidy vs untidy literals that still needs to be
>addressed.
> >
> > ... (more discussion of various details.  General tone is supportive,
>other
> > than concerns already mentioned.)
> >
> > Question:  can use of schema to express expected typing be consistent
>with
> > local typing?  Yes, but the schema-described typing would not be
>enforced
> > by the model theory.
> >
> > For clarity, the proposal is something like this:  <age
> > xsi:type="xsd:integer">10</age>
> >
> > DECIDED:  Guha, Sergey, PatH, Mike, Jos will work on a new proposal to
>do
> > local typing only;  jjc will do a test case or two.
> >
> > DaveB notes that if there are syntax changes, the final draft of syntax
>due
> > next week is at risk.
> >
> > MikeD reasserts that triple bloat would be a real problem (current
> > databases c. 0.5million triples).  The new proposal won't introduce new
> > triples;  still some concern about need to annotate literals with type.
> >
> > ACTION 2002-08-02#3, Guha:   lead submission of new datatyping proposal,
>ASAP
> > ACTION 2002-08-02#4, Jeremy: prepare test case(s) for new datatyping
>proposal
>
>
>in the meeting I argued
>[[[
>[14:43:02] gk-scribe
>JosD: don't buy triple-bloat argument -- prefer's
>"interpretation properties" approach, and believs
>it is scalable
>]]]
>-- http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2002-08-02.html#T14-43-02
>
>a bit later from MikeD
>[[[
>[15:02:02] gk-scribe
>MikeD: triple-bloat argument -- has a number of
>databases in the 0.5million triple range -- taking
>these to 2 million would be a problem.
>]]]
>-- http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2002-08-02.html#T15-02-02
>
>I really have a very hard time evaluating that
>so called "triple bloat" argument...
>Let me take (although this shouldn't be usual)
>our implementation.
>In the worst case that all RDF objects are literals
>and that they are all typed (i.e. no strings)
>we go from 6x java objects to 8x java objects
>which is an increase of 33%.
>In a more typical case, I would guess maybe 3%
>or less which is far from that mentioned 300%
>
>also
>
>"The all knowledge is contained in here"
>is not true (*)
>
>and
>
>we can translate from the more precise to
>the less precise; one way
>
>-- ,
>Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
>
>(*) taken from Tim Berners-Lee
>     this is at least true for this message, RDF
>     and Graham's meeting minutes :-)

-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>

Received on Saturday, 3 August 2002 04:23:37 UTC