- From: Chris Bizer <chris@bizer.de>
- Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:15:26 +0100
- To: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, "Graham Klyne" <GK@ninebynine.org>
Hi Graham, > It has been a while, but when I thought about this I came to the conclusion > that just one of (context-id) or (stating-id) was sufficient. > > E.g. given a (stating-id), (contexts) can be created as RDF containers and > their contents can be the required collection of (stating-id). > > Or, if (context-id) is used, then statements or groups of statements can be > isolated and referenced by placing them into separate (contexts). > Yes sure, this is possible and classic RDF way of doing things. The idea of quintuples as a logic model on top of RDF is making things easier and improving query performance. Our arguments for quintuples are: 1. A repository based on quintuples (with a relational database behind) would have a better query performance, because statings are stored in a compact fashion (1 row compared to 6 rows). 2. Quintuple allow to express complex queries in a compact and more human readably way. If you try to reformulate a query like: SELECT (null, <km:hasSkill>, <km:Programming>, ?y, null) WHERE (?y, <to:saidBy>, ?z, null, null), (?z, <rdf:type>, <km:Employee>, null, null), (?z, <km:affiliation>, ?r, ?t, null), (?r, <rdf:type>, <km:Project>, null, null), (?r, <km:isAboutTopic>, <km:Programming>, null, null) (?r, <km:Duration Until>, ?s, null, null) (?t, <to:date>, ?u, null, null) AND (?s > NOW()) (?u >"12.12.2001") USING km FOR <http://sampleVocabulary.org/KnowledgeManagement#> to FOR <http://sampleVocabulary.org/TrustOntology#> and you are using reification and RDF containers for information modelling, you end up with at least 3 times more patterns and joins in your database. Beside the query would be kind of unreadable and unmaintainable. Robert MacGregor and In-Young Ko argue in their paper [1] into the same direction and gave an example comparing a triple-oriented query with a quad-oriented query. I think as RDF models grow, repository performance should really be an argument. Chris [1] http://km.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/ws/psss03/proceedings/macgregor-et-al.pdf
Received on Friday, 19 December 2003 05:18:12 UTC