Re: Piggy-bank continues to haunt my dreams . . .

From: Dean Allemang <dallemang_at_acm.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:04:10 -0500 (EST)

> (many kudos to Stefano for off-list feedback around these
> thoughts).

. . . I am going to make the same suggestion to Stefano that Ryan made to
me, that is, that he bring those off-list comments here on-list for all of
us to see.



I am interested in your comments about performance; once of the things that
interests me about piggy bank is how the user has control over how much
stuff is in the current search space; e.g., you scrape a few pages with
Solvent, merge them, and run a query over the merged stuff (or show it off
in your googlemap). You get some WOW! results with very modest numbers of
triples (e.g., showing all the starbucks and libraries in my zip code
probably takes something less than 100 triples). Even if I were to add in
a few dozen "inferencing" triples (subClassOf, subPropertyOf, inverse),
even the most brain-dead inferencer could make it through that in a few
seconds. In the SemanticBank scenario, you get lots more triples (but even
so, I bet that if I were to dump the entire ISWC semanticBank as triples,
and put in a bunch of inferencing triples over it, that a smart engine like
Jess or RDFGateway could cut through the whole thing in about 2 cpu
seconds). [aside - is there an easy way do a dump like this, in RDF/XML or
N3?]


Finally, as for MS, they are quite conspicuous by their silence. We make
it our business to know what companies like MS are doing here, and we have
drawn on all our contacts to find out. Even so, the result is a deafening
silence. This suggests to me that they have something really, really, big,
but not nearly as cool as piggybank, ready to unveil and take over the
world. Q106.



Dean
Received on Thu Nov 24 2005 - 13:57:55 EST