Re: model vs. triple

There is no right and wrong, just degrees of usefulness.

If the use cases and work-flow context need a model, ta-da!
If the use cases and work-flow context need triples, bada bing baby!

I wish people would refrain from trying to define the panacea solution when
it is clear there is none.

Frank V. Castellucci

Devon Smith wrote:

> Hi,
> I've been working with RDF for about three months, and am working on
> an application. A colleague of mine and I disagree about the most
> appropriate way to deal with the data. He thinks the data should
> be dealt with at the model level, that a model plays the central role
> when working with the data. Models are what get inserted into and
> deleted from databases, and models are what is returned from
> searches. I think the data should be dealt with at the triple level,
> at least for our application. I think that a model is a useful way
> to talk about groups of triples, but not a necessary way. Triples
> get inserted, updated and deleted, and searches return triples.
> Anything said about a model is secondary to the triples.
> For instance, I have a triple that looks something like this:
> {dcq:modified, "", "2001-05-15"}
> I want to be able to update that triple as needed. Just the
> triple. If I'm working at the model level, I have to update the
> whole model, because of a tiny change.
> So, I'd like to know if anyone here thinks that I'm on the wrong track.
> Is it wrong, or likely to cause problems, to take the triple-centric
> path. I think that while both are acceptable ways to work with the data,
> the triple-centric view allows for more powerful manipulation of
> the data.
> Devon Smith

Received on Tuesday, 29 May 2001 09:14:42 UTC