Story Henry wrote:
On 11 Jun 2010, at 11:38, Nathan wrote:
:me foaf:knows <http://example.org/joe_bloggs#me> .
<http://example.org/joe_bloggs#me> a foaf:Person ;
foaf:name "Joe Bloggs"@en .
This is ok by me. Adding more information is useful, as
mentioned as it helps reduce connections. If you had a 1000 in your foaf file
without any information, your client would
need to make 1000 calls to get the info.
In all honesty, I'd probably not use a client that showed me 1000 connections
at a time, paging is vital when displaying information to humans so as to
prevent information overload - caveat that as soon as you include 'order by'
clauses to the view then all that dereferencing comes back in to play..
Yes, but even have 30 connections could slow things down.
Hmm, the reality of the current web is often surprising, for instance if
you check out the 'page' http://techcrunch.com/ you'll find 1.858 mb of
data comprising 279 different resources.
Compare, 1.858 mb of RDF from 279 different graphs.. that's a hell of a
lot and more than workable.
I think adding the name and a bit of info is perfectly ok. It is a way for
someone to say what they hold as core to their knowledge of the remote
resource. For example on the foaf-protocols mailing list, people have often
suggested that adding the public key of someone you know, could help trigger
alerts when someone changes their key.
In any case this points to the reason for why named graphs are so important.
Pragmatically there is no need to make a big fuss about this.
Concur, no need for a big fuss, personally feel it was worth a quick bit of
open discussion and consideration so we don't blindly fall in to certain
patterns without first considering the future effects, namely the discussion
we're having now.
Sorry, I did not mean to imply you were making a fuss :-)
Didn't presume you had, and likewise! :-)
Nathan
