On 5/23/13 11:42 AM, doug foxvog wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 14:01, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> On 5/22/13 10:21 AM, John F Sowa wrote:
>>> Kingsley, Pat H, and Matthew,
>>> ...
>>> In a relational DB, for example, a relation is represented by
>>> a table and a relationship is one row of the table. In RDF,
>>> a relationship is a single triple, and a relation is the set
>>> of all the triples with the same relation name.
>> Yes, but mapping that out isn't so easy,
> Agreed.
>
>> when you have an attention challenged non technical audience
>> as the target. For instance, many that even work with RDF
>> wouldn't instinctively associate the IRI in the
>> predicate role/slot of an RDF triple with relation name i.e., what
>> denotes the relation represented by said RDF 3-tuple.
>> Likewise, deconstructing an RDBMS table to unveil it too is comprised of
>> 3-tuples where:
>> 1. Table Name denotes Domain
>> 2. Field/Column Name denotes Predicate
>> 3. Field/Column data types supported by DBMS determine Range.
> This ignores rows.
>
> Also, normally one (or the combination of several)
> columns indicate the subject of a triple and one (or a combination
> of several) columns indicate the object of the triple. For different
> columns, the columns containing the subject may be different. (01)
Yes, but I didn't want to run the gamut re. RDF to RDBMS mapping. I do
have an engine that automates that mapping. The challenge is explaining
the mapping without losing a portion of the audience etc.. (02)
The challenge here is mapping Relations in RDF with Relations in a SQL
RDBMS, without losing the audience. (03)
>
>>> KI
>>>> I want to use this perspective to bridge RDF, RDF based Linked Data,
>>>> and Database Management systems.
>>> That's a worthy goal. I suggest that you add logic to that list,
>>> but do it in a way that is simple, accurate, and readable.
>> I tend to stick with inverse functional and sameAs relation semantics
>> since they are relatively intuitive.
> People may have several phone numbers and email addresses. (04)
Yes, and if they are denoted using URIs and used as objects of inverse
functional relations you end up with powerful data reconciliation [1]. (05)
> Multiple people may live at the same address and share the same
> land line phone number. (06)
Yes, which means that in those situations inverse functional
relationship semantics don't apply etc.. (07)
>
> Restricting relations to those functional in either order would block
> many relations encoded in RDMBS. (08)
Depends on who is performing the mapping :-) (09)
Links: (010)
1. http://bit.ly/Y6TIfs -- inverse functional relations utility
demonstration I published a while back . (011)
Kingsley
>
> -- doug f
>
>> ...
>>> John
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
>
>
> (012)
-- (013)
Regards, (014)
Kingsley Idehen
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen (015)
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (01)
|