- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 15:32:46 +0100
- To: "Eric Jain" <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch>
- Cc: "rdf-interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 14:47:03 +0200, "Eric Jain" <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch> wrote: > > Don't know whether the list of strategies for storing RDF data in a > relational database at http://www-db.stanford.edu/~melnik/rdf/db.html is > still updated? ... Not that I was aware of since 2001. There have, however, been several workshops and large reports on storing RDF in relational databases. If you take these and follow the references and citations, you should get the most recent reported work I'm aware of including schemas used. SWAD-Europe Workshop on Semantic Web Storage and Retrieval 13-14 November 2003, http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/events/20031113-storage/ and http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/reports/dev_workshop_report_4/ Practical and Scalable Semantic Systems 1st International Workshop collocated with ISWC 2003 July 2003 http://km.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/ws/psss03 and proceedings http://sunsite.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/Publications/CEUR-WS/Vol-89/ With respect to your schema - order of triples seems unimportant in rdf apps I've built. Your schema does look simple, similar to some of the earlier schemas tried by the cited projects in the above events such as the KAON schema, the first Jena schema. You support only a small set of possible datatypes. I'm not sure whether namespaces as you describe them makes things faster or more complex in queries and storage. The choice to have reification also can make SQL queries harder to construct. It sounds like you have some big iron running that database? Dave
Received on Wednesday, 31 March 2004 09:33:57 UTC