Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Forgot to copy the list on this response.... Without giving this much thought; you could probably prove that all data modes that are "computationally tractable" are reducible to a model that is isomorphic to a triple store. I would not give RDF any special status in regards to the general representation of such a model (and in fact would be rather hesitant to use it at all). Peter Hunsberger On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Costello, Roger L. <costello@m...> wrote: > Hi Folks, > > Scenario: You are tasked to build a system that will receive data from a > variety of sources. The data arrives in different formats (e.g., CSV, > binary, tab-delimited, JSON, XML). The data sources provide different kinds > of data (e.g., one source provides book data, another source provides > weather data, another source provides gardening data). The data will be > converted to a common intermediary form and then from the intermediary form, > placed into a data store. > > Recently I heard this statement: > > Converting data that is in various formats and contains > various kinds > of data, into a common intermediate form is hard > (computationally > expensive). RDF is the only data model the enables such > conversions > to be done in a way that is computationally tractable. > Therefore, we > must use RDF. And, as a corollary, we must use a triple store > to store > the RDF data. > > Do you agree with that statement? If you do, can you provide evidence that > RDF is the only data model that supports such conversions in a > computationally tractable manner? > > If you do not agree with that statement, can you provide evidence on why the > statement is false? > > /Roger
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
