In layman terms it's a local SPARQL endpoint with the difference that instead of me having to setup the whole server and load the datasets, the endpoint is setup automatically and the data is also automatically downloaded (in chunks, based on queries needs). Yes?
> i enquired once, why the intention to have a reliable endpoint was not a > dimension in the statistics which they collected and whether that would have > changed the conclusion, but have never gotten a thorough answer. > they have, instead, established a ldf source for datasets as their > demonstration that such a source should be easier to field. (the lod > laundromat) Sorry I don't completely understand. Do you mean to say that they only considered reliable SPARQL endpoints but didn't take this into consideration in their "demonstration"? This sounds very naive and deceiving. > statistics on a wider range of such ldf servers - including the class parties > who ran the unreliable sparql endpoints, would be interesting. yeah this would definitely need more benchmarks...
