On 4/5/11 7:45 PM, Juan Sequeda wrote:
On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Kingsley Idehen
mailto:kide...@openlinksw.com>> wrote:
All,
I've knocked up a Google spreadsheet that contains stats about our
21 Billion Triples+ LOD cloud cache.
On the issue of Triple Counts, you can't
On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> All,
>
> I've knocked up a Google spreadsheet that contains stats about our 21
> Billion Triples+ LOD cloud cache.
>
> On the issue of Triple Counts, you can't make sense of Data if you can't
> count it. We can't depend on SPARQL-FED for dis
On 4/5/11 4:17 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> It just makes
> the data a couple of orders of magnitude bigger and a few
> more orders of magnitude more cumbersome to deal with.
Yes and No. As will all of these matter utility lies in the eyes and
fingers of the data beholder.
*Typo fix edition
On 4/5/11 3:42 PM, William Waites wrote:
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
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 wond
All,
I've knocked up a Google spreadsheet that contains stats about our 21
Billion Triples+ LOD cloud cache.
On the issue of Triple Counts, you can't make sense of Data if you can't
count it. We can't depend on SPARQL-FED for distributed queries, and we
absolutely cannot depend on a Web craw
