W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > May 2001

RE: What do the ontologists want

From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 19:25:11 +0100
To: danny@panlanka.net
Cc: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Message-Id: <OFD67EFC80.8AF94E19-ON41256A50.006331E6@bayer-ag.com>


> >There's indeed a point here. Yesterday I was doing a testcase
> >with 200001 concepts used in 100000 statements (no real application,
> >just stress testing some inference engines). In that particular
> >testcase I found that the RDF/XML file could be zipped 20 times.
> >Using RDF/N3 this was just 4 times. So the XML file is 10 MB, the
> >N3 file is 2 MB and the binary compressed file is 0.5 MB. Needless
> >to say that this is having an impact on communication, storage and
> >processing. We found the best balance with N3 [1][2][3][4].
>
> Your figures speak for themselves, but I'm not sure of your implication -
> that N3 should be used in preference to RDF/XML? Wouldn't this be throwing
> the baby out with the bathwater? Performance and efficiency lie on a
> continuum, interoperability comes in big discrete chunks - do we really want
> an extra N converters? When the binary XML brigade on xml-dev have come up
> with something workable, that perhaps will be worth considering.

Honestly, I don't know the answers to your questions.
We just gathered some facts (such as sizes, speeds, etc.)
add for an artificial testcase.
Of course, you couln't be more right in saying that
  Performance and efficiency lie on a continuum,
  interoperability comes in big discrete chunks.

--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Friday, 18 May 2001 13:25:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:45:37 UTC