- 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