Re: plural vs singular properties (a proposal)

Frank Manola wrote:
> On Jan 5, 2008, at 5:11 PM, Garret Wilson wrote:
>> Yes, obviously some RDF subsets can be mapped to the relational model 
>> in several ways. As relating to my original question, though, I could 
>> not choose the semantics "interpreted in an obvious way" by Date as a 
>> way to support general RDF data. In other words, Date's 
>> interpretation is *only* compatible with storing a *strict subset* of 
>> RDF data; there exists RDF data that would not fit into this 
>> interpretation. This is the sense in which I meant that this 
>> interpretation (let's call it the "obvious" interpretation, using 
>> Date's words) is incompatible with RDF (the model) as a general 
>> interpretation, because it cannot represent everything expressible by 
>> RDF.
> Sorry, I'm not following you.  Could you give an example of RDF data 
> that wouldn't fit?  What I thought I just heard you say was that the 
> relational model can't represent everything that's expressible by RDF, 
> and that certainly isn't true (RDF can be thought of as a relational 
> model that follows particular design rules).  [I'll take this thread 
> up again tomorrow;  it's football time now!]

Hi, Frank! Go enjoy your game---I think we agree and you just missed an 
essential part of what I said.

What I said (and I think you agreed with me on this elsewhere) is that 
there exists RDF data that will not fit within the relational model 
(important part coming up -->) *if* we we use the interpretation that a 
relation header represents predicates and each tuple represents a 
distinct resource (the "obvious" interpretation used by Date and his 
wine bottles).

If we instead use your interpretation, in which each tuple represents an 
RDF triple, then all RDF data can fit as far as I can see.


Received on Saturday, 5 January 2008 23:04:04 UTC