On 4/6/11 1:05 PM, glenn mcdonald wrote:
I am demonstrating and talking about what Virtuoso infrastructure
enables.
You're talking about it, and you're *trying* to demonstrate it. But
your demonstrations are consistently undermined by other factors you
consider irrelevant.
To you.
You != my target audience, clearly.
My target audience is interested in DBMS scalability with regards to RDF
data ingestion, indexing, and publication. You, as far as I can gather
are more interested in idealism such as:
1. Perfect Data
2. Perfect Visual Aesthetics.
Hence, as I said earlier, your comments are skewed by context infidelity.
I think this might be your first post series to the LOD mailing list,
and you make a quantum leap re. assumptions about what I am
demonstrating or why I released the stats spreadsheets.
This isn't a newbies oriented mailing list. There is a lot of context
already in place re. my comments.
Nonsense. See
http://jeffjonas.typepad.com/IRAHSS_Expert_Counting.pdf,
Again, I've discussed these matters with Jeff and this is not
about perfect numbers.
"Perfect" is hardly the issue here. I encourage people to read the paper.
Yes, and most of the folks you refer to on these mailing lists (esp.
Semantic Web segment) already know the entire paper is about the stuff
OWL handles very well. The historic challenge has been all about how you
actually demonstrate the prowess of OWL against a massive Linked Data
Corpus.
Transitivity, Inference Context, InverseFunctional Properties,
owl:sameAs etc.. all understood by the audience here (at least in the
majority).
which summarizes itself like this: "This article suggests that
the single most fundamental capability required to make a
sensemaking system is the system’s ability to recognise when
multiple references to the same entity (often from different
source systems) are in fact the same entity." dbpedia as a
dataset fails this test badly.
And how on earth does that have anything to do with Counting?
I encourage *you* to read the paper, too.
See my comments above.
As I told you, I've already long done a "show and tell" session with
Jeff re. the prowess of OWL at the kind of scale our instance offers. If
you do know Jeff ask him this question: how did your session with
Kingsley go re. "sense making at massive scales" based on his instance
at: lod.openlinksw.com .
Not sure what you mean by "exhibit" here. Your queries
timeout, so unless the needle happens to be in the first
page of the haystack, you're not going to find it.
No they don't and that's where we just will not connect.
You've already seen our browser pages that do just that, and
your next response will ultimately take us back to arguing
about page aesthetics.
Sorry, I can't follow this response. By "no they don't" do you
mean that your queries /don't/ timeout? They certainly do when I
try them.
You can actually issue SPARQL with timeouts. Do you not remember
the conversation about partial aggregates in ad-hoc queries using
SPARQL or SQL? That's what I am talking about. What we call
"Anytime Query" [1] as a critical technique for ad-hoc queries at
infinite scale [2].
And as I've said before, this is an impressive technical
accomplishment. But it's not always helpful for people. If I have to
page through 20 straws of hay at a time, that's not what I mean by
searching the haystack.
If you have a massive amount of data in a query result set, the solution
is to present the results in a page that is driven by a Scrollable
Cursor. Depending on the kind of DBMS engine at hand and the model to
which the query is posed, the Cursor can take any of the following forms:
1. Static / Snapshot
2. Keyset
3. Dynamic
4. Mixed .
The above are old items from 30+ years of DBMS tech. not our invention,
just stuff we've learned across our own many years of experience and
applied to the emerging realm of Relational Property Graph based Linked
Data.
The folks on this mailing list understand why RPIs dataset is
loaded to the LOD cloud and what it means.
Perhaps so. Somebody want to describe the practical use they're making
of this data?
Maybe, but that's for a different thread and totally different
conversation. There are many folks interested in data quality matters.
Thus, you will find company, and that includes me. Just understand that
I started this thread with a specific purpose in mind that factored in
the target audience. One size doesn't fit all.
--
Regards,
Kingsley Idehen
President& CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
