Forgot to copy the list on this response....
Without giving this much thought; you could probably prove that all
data modes that are "computationally tractable" are reducible to a
model that is isomorphic to a triple store. I would not give RDF any
special status in regards to the general representation of such a
model (and in fact would be rather hesitant to use it at all).
Peter Hunsberger
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Costello, Roger L. <> wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> Scenario: You are tasked to build a system that will receive data from a
> variety of sources. The data arrives in different formats (e.g., CSV,
> binary, tab-delimited, JSON, XML). The data sources provide different kinds
> of data (e.g., one source provides book data, another source provides
> weather data, another source provides gardening data). The data will be
> converted to a common intermediary form and then from the intermediary form,
> placed into a data store.
>
> Recently I heard this statement:
>
> Converting data that is in various formats and contains
> various kinds
> of data, into a common intermediate form is hard
> (computationally
> expensive). RDF is the only data model the enables such
> conversions
> to be done in a way that is computationally tractable.
> Therefore, we
> must use RDF. And, as a corollary, we must use a triple store
> to store
> the RDF data.
>
> Do you agree with that statement? If you do, can you provide evidence that
> RDF is the only data model that supports such conversions in a
> computationally tractable manner?
>
> If you do not agree with that statement, can you provide evidence on why the
> statement is false?
>
> /Roger
