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 _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
