Print

Print


So: How does those numbers compare (in a rough sense) to what one gets by
multiplying out all of the MARC tags in all of the MARC records known to
exist in the world? Don't forget the authorities (except for library
subject headings, omitting all of its subdivision glory.

Ron Murray

On 4/10/15, 10:02 AM, "Rob Sanderson" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>For what it's worth, Stanford's current set of triples is around 800
>million, and Harvard's is over a billion.
>So no, it's not in the order of single millions.
>
>Hth,
>
>Rob
>
>Sent from my iPad
>
>> On Apr 10, 2015, at 01:25, Martynas Jusevičius <[log in to unmask]>
>>wrote:
>> 
>> Usage patterns do matter, I agree. But if we're only talking about an
>> order of millions of triples, there is no reason to believe that a
>> triplestore could not perform adequately in real-world usage
>> scenarios. This has been done already many times.
>> 
>> To my knowledge, BIBFRAME was designed as an RDF vocabulary and
>> intended for Linked Data use. So it's not me prescribing RDF. RDF is
>> the natural data model of choice here, while RDBMS a source of data
>> from legacy systems. Putting RDF data into an RDBMS makes no sense.
>> 
>>> On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Ross Singer <[log in to unmask]>
>>>wrote:
>>> Martynas, the number of triples don't matter.  It's the usage pattern
>>>that
>>> does.
>>> 
>>> To answer your question about "Because when you decide a DESCRIBE is
>>>not
>>> enough and you want a custom CONSTRUCT instead, you simply do that
>>>with the
>>> triplestore and you're stuck in the RDBMS setup that you suggest."
>>> 
>>> In that scenario, export to a triplestore and do what you need.  The
>>>vast
>>> majority of operations (and libraries) will never need or want to do
>>>this,
>>> though.
>>> 
>>> And I disagree about using a triplestore for everything and I think it
>>>will
>>> be a very long time (if ever) that you'll see it embraced by the
>>>enterprise.
>>> 
>>> Regardless, it's counter-productive to prescribe a specific technology
>>>if
>>> the goal is to increase adoption.  Especially if you don't know what
>>>the
>>> needs and constraints are.
>>> 
>>> -Ross.
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 8:58 AM Martynas Jusevičius
>>><[log in to unmask]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I question I've already asked here, but received no answer to: what's
>>>> the ballpark number of triples we're talking about?
>>>> 
>>>> Here's a list of large triplestore setups to compare with:
>>>> https://www.w3.org/wiki/LargeTripleStores
>>>> 
>>>> On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Bernhard Eversberg
>>>><[log in to unmask]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 10.04.2015 09:18, Ross Singer:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> But if you're just using DESCRIBEs, why bother with a triplestore?
>>>>>>Why
>>>>>> bother storing it natively as RDF at all?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> BIBFRAME only touches part of a library's data, and it doesn't make
>>>>>> much
>>>>>> sense to model the rest as RDF.  ...  Even
>>>>>> more unnecessary if it's sole purpose is to enable queries that are
>>>>>>not
>>>>>> even particularly useful.
>>>>> It is unfortunate that not much can be said up to now about the use
>>>>> cases to be expected. Though it was very likely deliberate by LC to
>>>>>not
>>>>> specify anything about use scenarios when they commissioned the
>>>>> development of BIBFRAME - so as not to anticipate anything that might
>>>>> be too library specific or backward.
>>>>> But one thing is clear: storage methods will have to scale well. Very
>>>>> well indeed. Both in terms of data volume and access traffic volume.
>>>>> What's the attitude of OCLC in that regard, and the vendors'? I mean,
>>>>> they should have some views, based on their experience.
>>>>> 
>>>>> B.Eversberg