- From: Richard H. McCullough <rhm@PioneerCA.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:09:55 -0700
- To: "Bijan Parsia" <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, "Damian Steer" <pldms@mac.com>
- Cc: "Olivier Rossel" <olivier.rossel@gmail.com>, "Semantic Web" <semantic-web@w3.org>
Just for contrast, here's how propositions are stored into and retrieved from an mKE knowledge base. For purposes of this example, assume that the KB hierarchy is begin hierarchy example; existent; / person; / attribute; / proposition; end hierarchy example; and the propositions are John Doe has email = john.doe@pioneerca.com, phone = 209-555-1212; Jane Doe has email = jane.doe@pioneerca.com, phone = 209-555-1212; The info. from these two propositions is "filed" in the hierarchy, which is implemented using Unicon tables and double-linked lists. 1. The two propositions are "filed" under proposition, and can be retrieved using the question: ? isu proposition; 2. John Doe and Jane Doe are "filed" under person, and can be retrieved using: ? isu person. 3. email and phone are "filed" under attribute, and can be retrieved using: ? iss attribute. 4. john.doe@pioneerca.com and jane.doe@pioneerca.com are "filed" under email, and can be retrieved using: ? isu email. 5. 209-555-1212 is "filed" under phone, and can be retrieved using: ? isu phone; 6. email = john.doe@pioneerca.com and phone = 209-555-1212 are "filed" in the attribute table of John Doe, and can be retrieved using: John Doe has ?; 7. email = jane.doe@pioneerca.com and phone = 209-555-1212 are "filed" in the attribute table of Jane Doe, and can be retrieved using: Jane Doe has ?; Lots of other queries are possible, including existent isc* ?; # prints whole hierarchy, including instances ? has email; # prints all people who have emails, with their emails John Doe has email = ?; # prints John Doe's email ? has email = jane.doe@pioneerca.com; # prints Jane Doe ? has ?; # prints all concepts which have attributes, with their attributes Dick ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bijan Parsia" <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk> To: "Damian Steer" <pldms@mac.com> Cc: "Olivier Rossel" <olivier.rossel@gmail.com>; "Semantic Web" <semantic-web@w3.org> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 1:06 PM Subject: Re: About computer-optimized RDF format. > > Hi Damain. > > On 23 Jul 2008, at 20:13, Damian Steer wrote: > [snip] >> For large numbers of triples, in my limited experience, the things that >> affect RDF load speed > > Ooo, I got a bit side tracked by the parsing bit. > >> are: >> >> The speed of your disk. >> The size of your memory. >> Building indexes. >> Duplicate suppression (triple, node, whatever). >> BNode handling. >> IRI and datatype checks (if you do them). >> Parsing. >> >> Now parsing is a factor, but it's fairly minor compared with the basic >> business of storing the triples. > > Indeed. > >> Stores would probably get more benefit from simple processing >> instructions like 'this contains no dupes' and 'my bnode ids are >> globally unique'. > > SWI Prolog had, IIRC, a mode to dump its internal structures so you would > avoid all that overhead (kinda like an image in Smalltalk or lisp). > Obviously databases do this as well. > > Hard to see that a common format would makea *ton* of sense. I guess you > could suppress dups, reconcile bnodes, and a few other things. Indexes? I > don't think so. That seems entirely proprietary and appropriately so. > > Cheers, > Bijan "Binary XML 4 Ever!" Parsia. > > Dick McCullough http://mKRmKE.org/ Ayn Rand do speak od mKR done; knowledge := man do identify od existent done; knowledge haspart proposition list; mKE do enhance od "Real Intelligence" done;
Received on Thursday, 24 July 2008 00:11:02 UTC