On Fri, 2011-05-27 at 21:56 +0530, surajit ray wrote:

> Is it possible to design an incremental RDF framework for such data ?

I think not. RDF offers freedom... Let me give an example from the real
life. Imagine of a natural language in which rules are so strict that
there is only one way to form sentences and more you are not allowed to
make interludes; your speech should be structured in a style consisting
of Introduction, Main Body and Conclusion (read: having Header and
Body). Imagine, in addition,  that you were supposed to talk only about
one subject (read: only about datasets). No comments, no remarks (read:
no DC properties) THERE WOULD BE NO LITERATURE!!! But... a robot would
be more likely to understand you quite fast. So, RDF is more like
literature... It offers you great syntactical freedom but it comes at a
price. If you apply syntactical restrictions to RDF, then we're talking
not only about a different representation but also about a different
framework.

> The main ingredients would be a starting "header" RDF block containing
> feature declarations and metadata.
> Followed by 1 incremental RDF "data block" at a time. Which would
> essentially mean 1 row of the dataset at a time.
> An optional end block could also be included to specify the stream end.
> 


That's out of the logic of RDF (unfortunately). And it looks more like
ARFF to me.


> The "data blocks" could be very minimalist with just the uri
> indentifier and the relevant data.
> 

They are already like that (more or less)

> Its simply a matter of a special protocol  (within the RDF domain)
> designed for the purpose of such large datasets.
> 
> RDF although large in their overall representation of objects provides
> a lot of comprehension capabilities vs ARFF.


true

>  Also theres the simple
> matter of having a single extra  comma in your data crashing the whole
> algorithm ( in ARFF) ! Natively RDF is more in tune to "comprehend"
> data rather than represent data in an efficient form.


Also true!

>  Also have to
> keep in mind that occasionally the need arises for a human to
> comprehend such data (in the native machine form) and in such cases
> RDF is quite unsuitable.
> 

Have you used tabulator on firefox? It's quite nice. Additionally, the
scope of RDF is not to be human-readable. That's why we have HTML.


> Another possibility could be to "compress" RDF using annotations. Of
> course that would mean designing and standardizing the annotations for
> all players who want to interact using the compressed form.
> 

Just a note: The RDF document with which the experiments were carried
out are quite optimized. Also RDF/XML in another study was shown to
outperform TURTLE and other equivalent representations. 

Best Regards,
Pantelis

> Just my two cents ....
> 
> Regds
> Surajit
> 
> On 27 May 2011 21:20, chung <chvng at mail.ntua.gr> wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >    Some criticism on RDF from the experience we've gained in OpenTox :
> > http://is.gd/qLJG3h . The article is not complete yet and will be
> > enriched with more facts and diagrams. We also started an interesting
> > discussion with Martin here : http://is.gd/cUKaCE which we can continue
> > on the mailing list.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Pantelis
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Development mailing list
> > Development at opentox.org
> > http://www.opentox.org/mailman/listinfo/development
> >
> 
> 
>