Dan Brickley wrote:
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Kingsley Idehen <[email protected]> wrote:
Jeni Tennison wrote:
Kingsley,
On 15 Apr 2010, at 23:19, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Do you have any idea as to the whereabouts of RDF data sets for the
SPARQL endpoints associated with data.gov.uk?
[...]
One thing I haven't been able to reconcile (in my head repeatedly) re. the
above.
If data provenance is the key concern behind the RDF dump releases, doesn't
the same issue apply to CONSTRUCTs or DESCRIBE style crawls against the
published endpoints? Basically, the very pattern exhibited by some user
agents that hit the DBpedia endpoint (as per the "DBpedia Endpoint Burden"
post).
hes
What makes a SPARQL endpoint safer than an RDF dump in this regard?
For what it's worth, I've encountered very similar attitudes over the
years in other environments. A good example is the digital library
world; both regarding access to digital collections and online access
to OPAC data, it was quite common to see Z39.50 search protocol access
to the full collection, but accompanied by a rather cautious
reluctance to also offer a simple data dump of the entire thing.
Pointing out that you could do this via repeated Z39.50 searches was
rarely helpful, and seemed more likely to encourage the search
interface to be restricted than for data dumps to be made available.
But hey, times are changing! I think it's just a matter of time...
cheers,
Dan
Dan,
Yes, these are different times, and hopefully I am also point out a
point of vulnerability should the issue of inadvertently release of
private data be paramount.
A secure system should close all security loopholes, period. :-)
--
Regards,
Kingsley Idehen
President & CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
