Neil Harris schrieb:
I definitely wouldn't recommend a flat triples
store as the only storage
representation.
Based on past experience with just such a system, while it's formally
semantically equivalent to higher-level descriptions, it's definitely
much harder to munge, because you have to reverse-engineer all the
reification that was needed to flatten the data into triples in order to
be able to see the higher-level patterns; it's much easier to just store
the higher-level description in the obvious natural way, and generate
the triples representation, and any other metadata output needed, from that.
True if you know the "obvious natural way" in andvance and can design a
database
schema for it. I don't think we can do that. We'll need a generic abstraction
for stoiring structured (meta) data, so it can be used for all the different
kinds of data we will get.
On the other hand, I see the problems with triple stores, especially wrt
reification. Triples make this very clumsy, and it's something we will need once
we cant to map infoboxes. We need it because a lot of the statements given in
infoboxes are qualified: they have a source, a unit of measurement, an error
margin, a point in time or some other meta-statement attached. I don't have a
good solution for this right now, but I do think we should consider it.
-- daniel