[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] master data vs. ontologies

To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 07:47:56 -0500
Message-id: <54E489FC.5090705@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On 2/17/15 11:17 PM, John F Sowa wrote:
As I said to Ravi, I don't think that there is any one-size-
fits-all solution for all purposes.  And I always regard legacy
systems as *successful* systems. They can last 40 years or more.
Forced conversion (e.g., RDB2RDF) is *not* interoperability.


To clarify:

Technologies that transform relation representations from SQL RDBMS Tables to RDF Property/Predicate graphs aren't about forced conversions, implicitly. Basically, they provide a platform agnostic VIEW feature that enables transformation in the following forms:

1. Dynamic  -- translations occur "on the fly" from a SPARQL query into SQL via RDBMS hosted RDF documents containing virtual relations

2. Materialized  -- no translations because data is materialized and sync'd (re., change-sensitivity) to RDBMS hosted RDF documents containing fully materialize relations.

The R2RML spec from the W3C simply provides a notation for declarative mapping between the different kinds or relation representations. Beyond that, Its up to the tools developers to implement as they see fit. In our case, the fundamental goal is simple: maximize new and future innovations -- in the realm of data access, integration, and management -- using existing infrastructure.

Bottom line, we never ask our customers to perform a wholesale "rip and replace" of their existing systems en route to being in position to exploit our technology.

View Type Pros & Cons:

Dynamic views still provides the fastest performance, but are incapable of handling so-called faceted navigation over different RDF relations, in scalable fashion.

Materialized views are still a little slower than their dynamic alternatives,  but are capable of handling (at massive scales) so-called faceted navigation over different RDF relations.

We have seriously sized enterprises making use of what I've outlined.

To conclude, the issue isn't with the specs for RDB2RDF transformation. It has more to do with how such open standards are promoted and taught (typically poorly) and implemented (typically poorly).


Kingsley Idehen	      
Founder & CEO 
OpenLink Software     
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog 1: http://kidehen.blogspot.com
Personal Weblog 2: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this

Attachment: 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)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>