| 11 | | To be provided by session chairs. |
| | 11 | The OMN/ontology topic attracted some attention and probably the most discussion of any session that day. In particular the presentation from Marshall Brinn and his prototype implementation of a SPARQL endpoing as part of AM API triggered a lot of attention. There were some concerns about the scalability and/or effect on the aggregates for having to run RDF stores and SPARQL engine implementations (possibility of a DDoS-like attack was brought up by users placing unbounded expensive queries). |
| | 12 | |
| | 13 | In general there was resistance to the idea of building this capability into existing non-RDF-enabled aggregates, however the idea of enabling the clearinghouse with the capability to respond to SPARQL queries (presumably based on information collected from the aggregates and converted to OMN) was received positively. Idea of multiple ‘resource search engines’ was brought up as something that can be implemented. |
| | 14 | |
| | 15 | The idea of a searchable clearinghouse is linked to the idea of brokers (because broker matching capability is similar to this idea except it offers more power due to the ability to offer promises of resources, which a clearinghouse wouldn’t), however at this time these ideas are decoupled and will be pursued separately. |
