Comments on: Re: In defence of the RDBMS http://agylen.com/2007/05/24/re-in-defence-of-the-rdbms/ Ugo Cei's Weblog Mon, 06 Oct 2008 22:09:38 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Ugo Cei: On RDF as a storage medium | Server software http://agylen.com/2007/05/24/re-in-defence-of-the-rdbms/#comment-91702 Ugo Cei: On RDF as a storage medium | Server software Sat, 26 May 2007 12:42:38 +0000 http://agylen.com/2007/05/24/re-in-defence-of-the-rdbms/#comment-91702 [...] I think this comment that Danny Ayers left on my In defence of the RDBMS post deserves to be discussed in a post of its own: The point about relational databases as an integration technology is well made, but I’m curious to know why you consider RDF worse as a storage medium. It has definite advantages over OO/RDBs when it comes to integration on the web (thanks to the use of URIs as keys, and the open world model). [...] […] I think this comment that Danny Ayers left on my In defence of the RDBMS post deserves to be discussed in a post of its own: The point about relational databases as an integration technology is well made, but I’m curious to know why you consider RDF worse as a storage medium. It has definite advantages over OO/RDBs when it comes to integration on the web (thanks to the use of URIs as keys, and the open world model). […]

]]> By: Agylen » On RDF as a storage medium http://agylen.com/2007/05/24/re-in-defence-of-the-rdbms/#comment-91671 Agylen » On RDF as a storage medium Sat, 26 May 2007 09:17:43 +0000 http://agylen.com/2007/05/24/re-in-defence-of-the-rdbms/#comment-91671 [...] I think this comment that Danny Ayers left on my In defence of the RDBMS post deserves to be discussed in a post of its own: The point about relational databases as an integration technology is well made, but I’m curious to know why you consider RDF worse as a storage medium. It has definite advantages over OO/RDBs when it comes to integration on the web (thanks to the use of URIs as keys, and the open world model). [...] […] I think this comment that Danny Ayers left on my In defence of the RDBMS post deserves to be discussed in a post of its own: The point about relational databases as an integration technology is well made, but I’m curious to know why you consider RDF worse as a storage medium. It has definite advantages over OO/RDBs when it comes to integration on the web (thanks to the use of URIs as keys, and the open world model). […]

]]> By: Danny http://agylen.com/2007/05/24/re-in-defence-of-the-rdbms/#comment-91109 Danny Thu, 24 May 2007 14:40:29 +0000 http://agylen.com/2007/05/24/re-in-defence-of-the-rdbms/#comment-91109 The point about relational databases as an integration technology is well made, but I'm curious to know why you consider RDF worse as a storage medium. It has definite advantages over OO/RDBs when it comes to integration on the web (thanks to the use of URIs as keys, and the open world model). For persistence I can't see any way it's <em>worse</em> than OO/RDBs (in fact quite a few RDF stores use RDBs for persistence under the hood). What's more, RDF has well-defined serializations (such as RDF/XML) which means that not only is the data portable between stores, it can also be dumped in a *standard* form. (For persistence it's perfectly reasonable to divide the data up into manageable chunks and distribute them across RDF/XML files). If "data lives much longer than applications", then isn't it better to take advantage of a clear standard, rather than the quasi-standards found in SQL implementations, or for that matter the more proprietary models found in OO DBs..? See also: Shelley Powers on <a href="http://burningbird.net/technology/accessibility-microformats-and-rdf-as-the-bezoar-stone/" rel="nofollow">RDF as the Bezoar Stone</a>. The point about relational databases as an integration technology is well made, but I’m curious to know why you consider RDF worse as a storage medium. It has definite advantages over OO/RDBs when it comes to integration on the web (thanks to the use of URIs as keys, and the open world model).

For persistence I can’t see any way it’s worse than OO/RDBs (in fact quite a few RDF stores use RDBs for persistence under the hood). What’s more, RDF has well-defined serializations (such as RDF/XML) which means that not only is the data portable between stores, it can also be dumped in a *standard* form. (For persistence it’s perfectly reasonable to divide the data up into manageable chunks and distribute them across RDF/XML files).

If “data lives much longer than applications”, then isn’t it better to take advantage of a clear standard, rather than the quasi-standards found in SQL implementations, or for that matter the more proprietary models found in OO DBs..?

See also: Shelley Powers on RDF as the Bezoar Stone.

]]> By: Gavin http://agylen.com/2007/05/24/re-in-defence-of-the-rdbms/#comment-91099 Gavin Thu, 24 May 2007 13:28:24 +0000 http://agylen.com/2007/05/24/re-in-defence-of-the-rdbms/#comment-91099 Of course there is still some pain. I guess the whole point of what I'm trying to say is: you can't magic away the pain of complex problems just by conjuring some silver bullet like OODBMS (or Ruby hehe). Cheers, Gavin. Of course there is still some pain. I guess the whole point of what I’m trying to say is: you can’t magic away the pain of complex problems just by conjuring some silver bullet like OODBMS (or Ruby hehe).

Cheers, Gavin.

]]>