Hey Karen,

It's purely anecdotal (albeit anecdotes borne from working at a company
that offered, and has since abandoned, a sparql-based triple store
service), but I just don't see the interest in arbitrary SPARQL queries
against remote datasets that I do against linking to (and grabbing) known
items.  I think there are multiple reasons for this:

1) Unless you're already familiar with the dataset behind the SPARQL
endpoint, where do you even start with constructing useful queries?
2) SPARQL as a query language is a combination of being too powerful and
completely useless in practice: query timeouts are commonplace, endpoints
don't support all of 1.1, etc.  And, going back to point #1, it's hard to
know how to optimize your queries unless you are already pretty familiar
with the data
3) SPARQL is a flawed "API interface" from the get-go (IMHO) for the same
reason we don't offer a public SQL interface to our RDBMSes

Which isn't to say it doesn't have its uses or applications.

I just think that in most cases domain/service-specific APIs (be they
RESTful, based on the Linked Data API [0], whatever) will likely be favored
over generic SPARQL endpoints.  Are n+1 different APIs ideal?  I am pretty
sure the answer is "no", but that's the future I foresee, personally.

-Ross.
0. https://code.google.com/p/linked-data-api/wiki/Specification


On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Ross, I agree with your statement that data doesn't have to be "RDF all
> the way down", etc. But I'd like to hear more about why you think SPARQL
> availability has less value, and if you see an alternative to SPARQL for
> querying.
>
> kc
>
>
>
> On 11/6/13 8:11 AM, Ross Singer wrote:
>
>> Hugh, I don't think you're in the weeds with your question (and, while I
>> think that named graphs can provide a solution to your particular problem,
>> that doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't raise more questions or
>> potentially more frustrations down the line - like any new power, it can
>> be
>> used for good or evil and the difference might not be obvious at first).
>>
>> My question for you, however, is why are you using a triple store for
>> this?
>>   That is, why bother with the broad and general model in what I assume
>> is a
>> closed world assumption in your application?
>>
>> We don't generally use XML databases (Marklogic being a notable
>> exception),
>> or MARC databases, or <insert your transmission format of choice>-specific
>> databases because usually transmission formats are designed to account for
>> lots and lots of variations and maximum flexibility, which generally is
>> the
>> opposite of the modeling that goes into a specific app.
>>
>> I think there's a world of difference between modeling your data so it can
>> be represented in RDF (and, possibly, available via SPARQL, but I think
>> there is *far* less value there) and committing to RDF all the way down.
>>   RDF is a generalization so multiple parties can agree on what data
>> means,
>> but I would have a hard time swallowing the argument that domain-specific
>> data must be RDF-native.
>>
>> -Ross.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Hugh Cayless <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>  Does that work right down to the level of the individual triple though?
>>> If
>>> a large percentage of my triples are each in their own individual graphs,
>>> won't that be chaos? I really don't know the answer, it's not a
>>> rhetorical
>>> question!
>>>
>>> Hugh
>>>
>>> On Nov 6, 2013, at 10:40 , Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>  Named Graphs are the way to solve the issue you bring up in that post,
>>>> in
>>>> my opinion.  You mint an identifier for the graph, and associate the
>>>> provenance and other information with that.  This then gets ingested as
>>>>
>>> the
>>>
>>>> 4th URI into a quad store, so you don't lose the provenance information.
>>>>
>>>> In JSON-LD:
>>>> {
>>>>   "@id" : "uri-for-graph",
>>>>   "dcterms:creator" : "uri-for-hugh",
>>>>   "@graph" : [
>>>>    // ... triples go here ...
>>>>   ]
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Rob
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 7:42 AM, Hugh Cayless <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I wrote about this a few months back at
>>>>>
>>>>>  http://blogs.library.duke.edu/dcthree/2013/07/27/the-
>>> trouble-with-triples/
>>>
>>>> I'd be very interested to hear what the smart folks here think!
>>>>>
>>>>> Hugh
>>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 5, 2013, at 18:28 , Alexander Johannesen <
>>>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>  But the
>>>>>> question to every piece of meta data is *authority*, which is the part
>>>>>> of RDF that sucks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
>