W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > August 2006

Re: RDF vs. relational databases

From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 15:56:02 +0200
Message-Id: <8BCD0AC4-3409-472A-A56E-5704F8135F5B@bblfish.net>
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
To: "revi s." <reviswami78@yahoo.com>

This is how I would put it in short:

"The Semantic Web is to all previous data formats what the internet  
is to the previous networking protocols. It abstracts, interconnects  
and overlays them. It can do this because it uses URIs at its core."

As soon as you want to be able to use data in a network environment,  
rdf is your friend. On the other hand the older technologies have  
been around for longer, so they are better understood, and much  
better tooled.

Henry

On 29 Aug 2006, at 03:14, revi s. wrote:

> I'm a newbie to RDF and have been facing a fundamental question as  
> read
> more about RDF. RDF positions itself away from plain XML
> representations of data saying XML suited for representing data with
> containment hierarchies, and where "order" is important, whereas RDF
> has a flatter structure, represents only references among different
> entities. That sounds just like what a relational database is supposed
> to do, and those are critieria when deciding whether to used an XML DB
> or a relational DB to store your data.
> Where does RDF fit in, and how does it compare to relational  
> databases.
> I keep hearing that databases are not good for "semi-structured" data,
> but am not yet able to understand how RDF addresses that. Mozilla for
> example uses RDF for very structured (table of content) data.
> What would be points of comparison where RDF is better suited to store
> and query my data?
> Revi S.
>
> Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com. Check it out.
Received on Tuesday, 29 August 2006 13:56:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:18 GMT