On 5 Aug 2010, at 09:10, Giovanni Tummarello wrote:
"linked data" with plain dereferenciable URIs it plain doesnt work
once you
move from the simplest examples.
Let's make that: The simplest style of linked data doesn't work once
you move from the simplest examples.
Only solution for you now is to use SPARQL instead of resolving the
URI.
Much less traffic and it would actually work
SPARQL doesn't make the problem go away, it just pushes the limits
further out. SPARQL endpoints that see significant traffic have
similar restrictions built in, either on query complexity or query
runtime or number of results. So you might hit the limit at 16000
statements rather than 2000 or whatever.
or ask the HTML side, if there is RDFa bingo
DBpedia has RDFa in the HTML pages.
The problem has actually been discussed by Tim in his original article
that introduced the “Linked Data” idea: See [1], section “Limitations
on browseable data”, onwards from “Other times, the number of arcs
makes it impractical.” (You know, that's further down in the article,
and most people who talk about linked data stopped reading after the
Four Principles... ;-) You'd probably have to add a pagination
vocabulary as well. This is of course something that publishers would
have to adopt, so it doesn't immediately help Jörn.
Best,
Richard
[1] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html
