W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > March 2004

Re: Storing RDF in a relational database

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 15:32:46 +0100
To: "Eric Jain" <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch>
Cc: "rdf-interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20040331153246.48b3b916@hoth.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 14:47:03 +0200, "Eric Jain" <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch> wrote:

> 
> Don't know whether the list of strategies for storing RDF data in a
> relational database at http://www-db.stanford.edu/~melnik/rdf/db.html is
> still updated? ...

Not that I was aware of since 2001.  There have, however, been several
workshops and large reports on storing RDF in relational databases.  If
you take these and follow the references and citations, you should get the
most recent reported work I'm aware of including schemas used.

SWAD-Europe  Workshop on Semantic Web Storage and Retrieval
13-14 November 2003,
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/events/20031113-storage/
and http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/reports/dev_workshop_report_4/

Practical and Scalable Semantic Systems
1st International Workshop collocated with ISWC 2003
July 2003
http://km.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/ws/psss03
and proceedings http://sunsite.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/Publications/CEUR-WS/Vol-89/

With respect to your schema - order of triples seems unimportant in rdf
apps I've built. Your schema does look simple, similar to some of the
earlier schemas tried by the cited projects in the above events such as
the KAON schema, the first Jena schema.  You support only a small set of
possible datatypes.  I'm not sure whether namespaces as you describe them
makes things faster or more complex in queries and storage.  The choice
to have reification also can make SQL queries harder to construct.

It sounds like you have some big iron running that database?

Dave
Received on Wednesday, 31 March 2004 09:33:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 18 February 2014 13:20:07 UTC