I worked with graph databases and RDF stores for some time, and even took a shot at writing a book for it. But my conclusion was that the software is still too immature to be useful. The software is either extremely expensive, very buggy, or incomplete. All the studying I did led me to believe that the power of semantic web has less to do with the type of database used and more to do with the algorithms and schema, which can be ultimately represented in any type of database. Graph databases can be more intuitive for certain types of data, but I'd rather stick with well-established mature databases. A graph database can be simply no more than a document database with some additional schema and functions layered over it, as is the case with OrientDB.
So I don't think that these new databases are a silver bullet for anything. It's the schema that matters. On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 10:48 PM, Azn A <[email protected]> wrote: > Sir, you're talking to a creative genius here. I already know about > collective knowledge systems. In fact I plan to harness that power with a > family of semantic repositories, or RDF database management systems that > make up the backbone of the next generation Web of Data, known as Semantic > Web or Web 3.0. I have already developed software that is basically an > easy-to-use wiki that is powered by a metadata engine that tags > user-contributed data with semantical annotations that computers can > understand. > back-end. In other words, a services architecture that allows for all of > our apps to connect together and share one common data store. > > <http://www.listbox.com> > ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-c97d2393 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-2484a968 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
