- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 16:08:39 -0400
- To: Kendall Grant Clark <kendall@clarkparsia.com>
- CC: Michael F Uschold <uschold@gmail.com>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Sören Auer <auer@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>, Chris Bizer <chris@bizer.de>, Frank van Harmelen <frank.van.harmelen@cs.vu.nl>, Semantic Web Interest Group <semantic-web@w3.org>, "Fabian M. Suchanek" <f.m.suchanek@gmail.com>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@csail.mit.edu>, jim hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>, Mark Greaves <markg@vulcan.com>, "georgi.kobilarov" <georgi.kobilarov@gmx.de>, Jens Lehmann <lehmann@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Frederick Giasson <fred@fgiasson.com>, Michael Bergman <mike@mkbergman.com>, Conor Shankey <cshankey@reinvent.com>, Kira Oujonkova <koujonkova@reinvent.com>, Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@istc.cnr.it>, Ivan Mikhailov <iv@openlinksw.com>, Orri Erling <oerling@openlinksw.com>, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Kendall Grant Clark wrote: > Excerpts from Kingsley Idehen's message of Wed May 14 14:59:29 -0400 2008: > >> Owlgres is a PostgreSQL application. Why the DBMS specificity? >> > > Because it makes for a better name, obviously... ;> > > Seriously, it's not Postgres specific. We prefer Postgresql, but Owlgres ca > run on any JDBC-compliant database. I suspect that, as it matures and we find a > customer base for it, it will run on a variety of databases. > Okay, the JDBC bit is good, and we can easily test Owlgres against Virtuoso JDBC. But of course, we end up with the obvious question: Why are we using JDBC to talk to a DBMS engine equipped with a Quad Store? We've been through this re. recent work relating to new Model Providers for Sesame, Jena, and Redland (all of which offer SQL DBMS and Graph Model persistence APIs). > >> What does PosgreSQL offer that you may have assumed is/was missing from >> Virtuoso when developing this application? >> > > I don't know why you're assuming that I assumed anything, but the primary > reasons we chose Postgresql were maturity, scalability, extensibility, vibrant > after-market, BSD license, and PostGIS. > Bad choice of words on my part re: is/was :-) Since I haven't had time to look under the hood, I want you to assist me in understanding what PostgreSQL offered that lead to what I assumed was a PostgreSQL specific application. > >> I've also added, Orri Erling (Program Manager Virtuoso), Ivan Mikhailov >> (Lead Developer of Virtuoso's Quad Store functionality realm), and Alan >> Rutternberg to this thread (Alan is interested in Owlgres and Virtuoso >> integration). >> > > If you'd like to have a conversation with Alan or others about Owlgres working > w/ Virtuoso, we can do that offline or at SemTech next week, but I don't think > it's very relevant here. > Sure, we can take that offline, but note the context of my comments (above plus the bit below): << > > *MikeUschold *noted that the computational issue of owl:sameAs proliferation > > is a major problem, even if noone is going to load all the semantic web data > > into a single store. For today's triple stores that do limited inference, > > owl:sameAs "has a significant run time" according both to common sense as > > well as the developers of OpenLink's Virtuoso triple > > store<http://docs.openlinksw.com/virtuoso/rdfsparqlrule.html#rdfsparqlruleintro> > > . > > They say it can easily double query > > times<http://www.openlinksw.com/weblog/oerling/?id=1347>. > You don't have to do it at query time. Owlgres does owl:sameAs processing at load time and so the *query time* cost is negligible. The usual caveats about tradeoffs and use cases apply, of course. >> I am trying to determine if we've ended up with two things that are artificially disconnected :-) > Cheers, > Kendall > > -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen President & CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Received on Wednesday, 14 May 2008 20:09:21 UTC