Here's my views:

Triple Store:
the big problem with semantic web, no matter how big promises it
makes, is the amount of triples that can be stored and dealt with. As
the size of triples increase, developers suffer from resource problem.
So the question is how can I work with billion triples? I am not
backed by organizations to give me resources for working on the big B
of billion. Do we have the sandbox ???

System requirements and benchmarking criteria are not clear.

Linked data:

this is most probably the best part of realizing the semantic web and
i hope some killer apps gonna be developed that will make people think
'This is the reason to shift to semantic web !!!" Till now, Semantic
web is just an academic hype.

Reasoning:
Reasoning comes after Triple Store. Resource problem again !!!

Ontology Research:
Could you fine tune this section? Is it creation of new ontologies or
creation of new language or sth else ?

---
Amit Krishna Joshi


--- In billiontriples@yahoogroups.com, Jim Hendler <hendler@...> wrote:
>
> All-
> Peter feels that we now have the collection and distribution of the
> triples underway, which means he gets to make me do some work finally...
> My role at the moment is to figure out what we would like to make
> the challenge part of the challenge be,
> Here are some thoughts, I welcome feedback
> We see four, very non disjoint audiences for the challenge (in
> fact, Peter, me, and most of the people on this list are in at least
> several categories):
> Triple store developers, linked data technology developers, Semantic
> Web researchers interested in scalable reasoning, ontology-based
> research groups
>
> Here are some of my thoughts with respect to these
>
> A - Triple Store Developers
> We do not want this to be a "triple store shootout" in the sense
> of who can process a query fastest or such. We don't see that
> competition as being all that useful at a time when people are still
> very much in development mode. Rather, we would like the outcome of
> this event to be a realization in the outside world that triple-stores
> can and do handle these sorts of numbers (the DB folks still say
> "triple stores break at a million triples" at conferences I go to - I
> have no idea where they get that, but let's push it up a few orders of
> magnitude!!)
> So at the moment my thinking on this area is that we would like to
> give you folks bragging rights for being able to support systems other
> people develop (i.e. any of you who host this data and make it
> available via SPARQL should be listed as "winners" in some way)
> I also think that if some interesting, large, and complex SPARQL
> queries are developed against this dataset (say including filters and
> optionals), then those would become useful benchmarks, so we would
> like to find a way to encourage the sharing of these (maybe for a
> future date when a benchmarking shootout would be more appropriate)
>
> B - Linked data technology developers
> We write a lot about the Semantic Web as being the Web of linked
> data, but to date, in practice, most of that data is either within an
> enterprise or locked in a particular application. We are purposely
> designing this dataset to be very heterogeneous, but with many
> connections between pieces, so it should be a great dataset for
> showing off tools that can exploit the dataweb.
> In this area we are thinking of having some goals like "visualize
> (or browse) the dataweb", Datamining of this sort of data, etc. --
> seems to us this is a ripe area for a challenge
>
> C - SW researchers interested in scalable reasoning
> The data set we are developing will include a (large) number of
> triples tied to FOAF, DOAP and other "small o" ontologies. We also
> have a lot of data that will be made available that was crawled from
> microformats (where the "semantics" are well specified). This is thus
> an ideal proving grounds for the "little semantics goes a long way"
> philosophy, and thus this also seems like an appropriate challenge area
>
> D - Ontology research
> Big A-Box, you got it! Show us something.
>
> So, I think we will have the "competition" be fairly unspecified - we
> will identify several areas of interest from the above and work out
> how to tie that into an "announcible" competition.
>
> I welcome, NEED, your feedback on this
> -Jim H.
>
>
>
>
> "If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would
> it?." - Albert Einstein
>
> Prof James Hendler http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler
> Tetherless World Constellation Chair
> Computer Science Dept
> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180
>