- From: <ssarkar@ayushnet.com>
- Date: 21 Feb 2001 09:06:54 -0800
- To: danny@panlanka.net
- Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
On Tue, 20 February 2001, "Danny Ayers" wrote: > Ok, so it's easy enough to store triples/quads as > records in a table, but when you come to doing anything with them you have > to use different structures - so persistence in a tree-structured DB/an > ODBMS could potentially be more efficient overall. > This is a debate for last 10-15 years. ODBMS seems to support more friendly semantics but it fails to match RDBMS internal mechanics for normalization/transaction/integrity (direct pointers are bad things -- this is another story). Now there are O-RDBMS with Java,XML bound inside RDBMS. Unified data model for multiple O-RDBMS is supported using internet directories. My vote is for RDBMS/O-RDBMS -- any other effort will finally fail. > > I think a modified version of the transaction (which encompasses distributed > sources of data) is a way to go. But note the word modified. > Unified data model over multiple O-RDBMS addresses transaction over ditributed sources of data. A RDF document can be a view over multiple O-RDBMS in a unified model. Transactions and view generations can be all made seamless. > I strongly suspect more than this will be required - for instance (perhaps) > a system close to the database that monitors for potential infinite > loops/destructive conflicts. I reckon it would probably make sense to > associate such protection with the storage mechanism rather than with the > communication/inference systems. > > There is one assumption your time-stamping approach is making, that I think > at least needs questioning - > will the most recent version of a piece of information always be the most > valid? > Consistency, validity checks, multple views/updates are all now known technology in a RDBMS. All these things can be pushed inside disparate O-RDBMS. --ssarkar@ayushnet.com
Received on Wednesday, 21 February 2001 12:07:34 UTC