> What's your interest in RDF*?
There seems to have been this endless debate about triplestores vs property graphs since as far as I can remember. This new standard apparently promises to be the best of both world by supporting RDF plus what they call "richer types" (aka nodes, vertexes). "Richer" compared to the extremely atomic level of triples. So my interest is mostly to try it and see how it compares. Also from a storage point of view since everything that I've read claims that property graphs are faster to traverse because their storage is not "index-based" like triples. I've personally tried to use a couple of property graphs databases but I keep going back to triplestores for the only reason that they use more standardized technology. Every property graph instead seems to have its own way of doing things; I couldn't even find a standardized format for exporting/importing graphs or a standardized query language (although there are some efforts toward one called GQL). So if RDF* can combine the best parts of both worlds, I want to try it :) Please note that I'm not personally interested in the semantic web or the RDF artificial intelligence koolaid. I'm interested in the graph model with a great appreciation for free standards and simplicity. If RDF* can make the design of graphs simpler (ie. richer structures, fewer hacks and workarounds) then it's definitely something that I will use. Another issue for me with property graphs, but I would like to hear your feedback on this, is that properties are indexed globally and it's my understanding that they only accept one data type (eg. Integer). So I'm not sure how indexing work over there from a storage point of view. I think they would require me to define 2 properties instead of one or some kind of namespace, let's say "ns1_age" and "ns2_age" where one property takes Integer and the other one String for example. Which, at the end of the day, is the same thing as using RDF prefixes.
