I use on the SF (1) site (powered by (2) ) a secondary TDB database, not exposed via SPARQL, which contains annotations on the primary data. This enables to have roughly the equivalent of git; its records a history of user edits. Via web pages, only a bit of this data is exposed, allowing to show this historic table view: http://semantic-forms.cc:1952/history?limit=50
This is an alternative to RDF* , AFAIK . If someone is interested, I can document the structure of the secondary TDB database. (1) SF site http://semantic-forms.cc:1952/ (2) SF software http://semantic-forms.cc:9112/ldp/semantic_forms Jean-Marc Vanel <http://semantic-forms.cc:9112/display?displayuri=http://jmvanel.free.fr/jmv.rdf%23me> +33 (0)6 89 16 29 52 Le dim. 13 déc. 2020 à 20:35, Laura Morales <laure...@mail.com> a écrit : > > What's your interest in RDF*? > > There seems to have been this endless debate about triplestores vs > property graphs since as far as I can remember. This new standard > apparently promises to be the best of both world by supporting RDF plus > what they call "richer types" (aka nodes, vertexes). "Richer" compared to > the extremely atomic level of triples. So my interest is mostly to try it > and see how it compares. Also from a storage point of view since everything > that I've read claims that property graphs are faster to traverse because > their storage is not "index-based" like triples. I've personally tried to > use a couple of property graphs databases but I keep going back to > triplestores for the only reason that they use more standardized > technology. Every property graph instead seems to have its own way of doing > things; I couldn't even find a standardized format for exporting/importing > graphs or a standardized query language (although there are some efforts > toward one called GQL). So if RDF* can combine the best parts of both > worlds, I want to try it :) > Please note that I'm not personally interested in the semantic web or the > RDF artificial intelligence koolaid. I'm interested in the graph model with > a great appreciation for free standards and simplicity. If RDF* can make > the design of graphs simpler (ie. richer structures, fewer hacks and > workarounds) then it's definitely something that I will use. > Another issue for me with property graphs, but I would like to hear your > feedback on this, is that properties are indexed globally and it's my > understanding that they only accept one data type (eg. Integer). So I'm not > sure how indexing work over there from a storage point of view. I think > they would require me to define 2 properties instead of one or some kind of > namespace, let's say "ns1_age" and "ns2_age" where one property takes > Integer and the other one String for example. Which, at the end of the day, > is the same thing as using RDF prefixes. >
