- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 13:45:59 -0400
- To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 08/24/2012 12:09 PM, Sandro Hawke wrote: > On 08/24/2012 07:32 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: >> [...] >> Sandro, >> >> How would you map g-box, g-snap, and g-text in formal relational DBMS >> terminology? Such a mapping would help many. Basically, mapping to >> relations, sets of tuples, and notation. >> > > I'm not really fluent in RDBMS theory terminology. I do know the > terminology database app developers use, though, I think -- the kind of > stuff you find in the Oracle or MySQL manuals (talking about "tables" > instead of "relations"). In that terminology, I'd say: > > g-box: table (or view) > g-snap: dump of a table (or view) > g-snap: not something one normally deals with; either: > - a state of a table; or > - a value which is the set of all the rows in a table. > > This is more of an analogy than a real correspondence, since a table row is > not the same thing as an RDF triple, in general. (You could make a > Subject/Property/Value table, but the data typing of the value wouldn't work > right, in general.) > > -- Sandro I don't see how a g-box can be a table, as a table is only a potentially small part of a database. I think that perhaps the mapping to informal usage is: g-box: database g-snap: database g-text: not used much as databases aren't often moved around, perhaps database dump, but that's not really very correct peter
Received on Friday, 24 August 2012 17:46:36 UTC