[FoRK] Q re: ConceptNet (also FluidDB)
Stephen D. Williams
sdw at lig.net
Fri Oct 23 14:13:16 PDT 2009
J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
> On Oct 22, 2009, at 2:21 AM, Stephen Williams wrote:
>> There was a commercial database product with a very nice Java-based
>> GUI that was essentially an RDF-graph based database. It was not
>> hard to understand or use. Unfortunately, they took the wrong
>> product path. I had several conversations with the founder. He just
>> deviate from his particular viewpoint and he didn't know anything
>> about RDF / semantic ideas.
>> Anyway, yes, that is true now, however I don't think it is
>> necessarily true. We just need the equivalent of a spreadsheet
>> application to make it accessible. I'm thinking about it, when I can...
> Product design is a secondary problem.
That is only true for certain classes of problems.
> For real-world semantic/RDF graphs, the operating rule of thumb is
> that current technologies become useless at around 100k nodes for lack
> of scalability. That is single-workstation in-memory scale. There are
> a number of companies offering semantic graph engines and customers
> insensitive to interface with large buckets of cash for a decent graph
> database but no one is crossing that chasm.
Scalability is an issue. On the other hand, most scalability issues
have a solution. Certainly simple, flat triple stores aren't going to
do it. I introduced chunkiness to one of my designs (it had temporal
versioning.) Other ideas include certain kinds of clustering,
denormalization-like constructs, etc.
How would you characterize the scalability problems that you have seen?
What fundamental issue was involved?
More information about the FoRK