Yep, http://iswc2011.semanticweb.org/fileadmin/iswc/Papers/Workshops/SSWS/Ladwig-et-all-SSWS2011.pdf
indicates that they are indexing by subject. As someone who has implemented LDP, that is definitely the approach that makes sense there. --- A. Soroka The University of Virginia Library > On Oct 17, 2016, at 12:20 PM, Andy Seaborne <[email protected]> wrote: > > IIRC It stores CBDs indexed by subject so it is the "other" model to Rya. > Better for LDP (??). > > Andy > > On 17/10/16 15:41, A. Soroka wrote: >> There's also: >> >> https://github.com/cumulusrdf/cumulusrdf >> >> in a similar vein (RDF over Cassandra). Not sure what kind of particular >> uses it expects to support. >> >> --- >> A. Soroka >> The University of Virginia Library >> >>> On Oct 17, 2016, at 7:02 AM, Andy Seaborne <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Claude, >>> >>> There is certainly interest from me. >>> >>> What the best thing to do depends on various factors. By putting it in >>> extras I presume you mean it gets added to the release? That is not the >>> only way forward. >>> >>> An important aspect of Apache is "Community over code" - will there be a >>> community around this code? Is that community the same, or significant >>> overlap, as the Jena community? >>> >>> There are various reasons for wanting RDF over a column store - which use >>> cases are the most important for this work? >>> >>> They lead to different ways of using Cassandra. For example, >>> Rya(incubating) uses Accumulo tables as indexes, and partial scans of the >>> table is streaming. Other systems try to use the columns for properties, >>> possibly more useful for LDP style than SPARQL. >>> >>> Andy >>> >>> On 15/10/16 18:38, Claude Warren wrote: >>>> Howdy, >>>> >>>> We have a project at work that is implementing Jena Graph on Cassandra. I >>>> am wondering if there is enough interest here to accept it as a >>>> contribution. I was thinking that it might fit in the Extras category. >>>> >>>> I can not promise release of the code yet as I have to present it to our >>>> internal Intellectual Property group first. >>>> >>>> Thoughts? >>>> >>>> Claude >>>> >>
