- From: Steve Harris <swh@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 12:59:12 +0100
- To: "Emanuele D'Arrigo" <manu3d@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Semantic Web Interest Group" <semantic-web@w3.org>, "public-owl-dev@w3.org" <public-owl-dev@w3.org>
On 26 Sep 2007, at 12:33, Emanuele D'Arrigo wrote: > > On 9/26/07, Renato Golin <renato@ebi.ac.uk> wrote: >> I'm quite interested in triplet storages but what I found is that >> there >> is no consensus nor standard for anything in that area. > > In hindsight, I believe my question was a bit hopeless: as Arjohn > says it's unlikely that a consensus will ever develop on the matter. > There will be various options with pros and cons. My bad. =) > > I guess my question really had to be more in the direction of: > are there two or three architectures for triplets storage to choose > from? I think there are many more than that. Much like with SQL engines, there are almost as many sotrage algorithms as products. >> There are several storage engines but each one doing it's own way. >> Also, the support to query languages is quite random. > > Indeed I seem to have noticed that. Is the field still so novel > that there are no full implementation of RQL? > Yet, the specifications seems to have been stable for some time... =? No idea, but there are full implementations of SPARQL, and lots of more-or-less complete ones. - Steve
Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2007 11:59:30 UTC