durusmail: durus-users: OODB vs SQL
OODB basics
2005-10-08
2005-10-09
2005-10-09
2005-10-09
2005-10-09
2005-10-09
2005-10-09
2005-10-09
2005-10-09
2005-10-09
2005-10-11
2005-10-12
Re: OODB basics
2005-10-11
OODB vs SQL
2005-10-09
2005-10-09
2005-10-09
Re: OODB vs SQL
2005-10-10
Re: OODB vs SQL
2005-10-10
OT: Durus
2005-10-13
2005-10-13
2005-10-13
2005-10-09
2005-10-09
2005-10-09
2005-10-10
2005-10-11
2005-10-11
2005-10-11
2005-10-11
Re: OODB vs SQL
2005-10-11
2005-10-11
2005-10-11
2005-10-12
2005-10-12
2005-10-12
Demo application [was: Re: [Durus-users] Re: OODB vs SQL]
2005-10-13
Re: OODB vs SQL
2005-10-11
Durus basics
2005-10-09
2005-10-09
2005-10-10
2005-10-10
2005-10-10
2005-10-13
2005-10-13
2005-10-13
2005-10-13
Re: OODB basics
2005-10-13
OODB vs SQL
Rodrigo Dias Arruda Senra
2005-10-11
[ A.M. Kuchling ]:
> You might look at what the RDF community is doing for large data sets.
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/reports/rdf_scalable_storage_report/
> surveys the available free software libraries.

Even though I was familiar with RDF, I was
unaware of that report. Thank you very much.


> Generally they store 3-tuples consisting of (source node, arc label,
> dest. node or value), either as a RDBMS table or in some more
> specialized way.  I don't know if RDF graphs count as "dense"; what
> does "dense" mean in this context?

We can certainly find an ontology "dense" enough for any definition
of dense these days. But in the aforementioned context, I expect to find
degree >= 100. But this is mere speculation, since I could not examine
the actual graph yet, due to privacy concerns.

best regards,
Rod Senra

reply