nathan at webr3.org
Thu Dec 16 21:55:30 CET 2010
Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> When we agree, that there needs to be some canonical syntax, question
>> rises: which? It can be any RDF serialization, OData, or some other EAV
>> based syntax.
> Just a EAV graph. When you pull back the encoding of most structured
> data in the wild today (and from the past) you will find EAV at the
> base, and spin to the side its basically FOL logic.
I have to ask, is that correct? I still can't see how RDF is EAV at the
base, I can see how it could be stored in the same model as EAV data,
from a DBMS perspective, and also how the foreign key attributes relate
to webized properties/predicates, but surely RDF is more than just EAV
and doesn't have everything in common with eav, open schema, object
property value, frame slot value, or any any of the similar data models.
For one, RDF is webized, with URIs, and URIs bring many features to the
world of RDF not present in EAV, secondly it's got that FOL
description/statement aspect to it coupled with open world semantics,
and a labelled digraph rather than EAV "rows", for instance each node
can be one of those foreign keys (but they're really web-named logical
Ultimately I guess that I keep taking what you say about EAV to suggest
that these techs are in a tree, where EAV is at the top of that tree,
whereas I see it more like EAV is like a subset of RDF and potentially
compatible with RDF, and RDF is a subset of "potential RDF", N3 - saying
that, I do also see how for some people, relating EAV to RDF would be a
good approach to grokking it, but surely we can't just take any EAV data
and call it RDF, or take any RDF and call it EAV, even just the open
world semantics and the inherited features of URIs are enough to often
mean the RDFized data doesn't "say" what was originally intended.
More information about the foaf-protocols