So I don't have answers to your questions, but do have some
observations about the results, particularly the counts of
distinct predicates.
The top one is rdf:type which makes sense. Below that we
have ones used in reification. Who knew there was actually
that much reified data out there? I wonder where this comes
from and what about the consensus that this is not a good
idea and should be deprecated?
SELECT DISTINCT ?graph, COUNT(?s) AS ?count WHERE {
GRAPH ?graph { ?s ?p <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Statement>
}
} ORDER BY DESC(?count) LIMIT 50
This query times out, but it would be interesting to know
the answer, who is the source of all of these reifications?
Next is rdfs:label, ok, fine. After that, a sizeable chunk
of data has to do with rows and columns in CSV tables that
comes from data.gov. How is a mechanical transliteration
from CSV to RDF without any modelling useful? It just makes
the data a couple of orders of magnitude bigger and a few
more orders of magnitude more cumbersome to deal with. I
mean, being able to refer to a specific spreadsheet cell is
useful but how does actually materialising all of them do
anything but take up disk space and slow down queries?
Cheers,
-w
--
William Waites <mailto:[email protected]>
http://river.styx.org/ww/ <sip:[email protected]>
F4B3 39BF E775 CF42 0BAB 3DF0 BE40 A6DF B06F FD45
