[Z3-zemantic] thaughts about zodb backend storage

[Michel Pelletier]

On Tuesday 29 March 2005 12:23 pm, Tres Seaver wrote:

Oops, there was more.

> > But it wouldn't be the same RDF graph, and that would be Zemantic playing
> > a dirty trick (ie, an "interpretation").  Zemantic cannot interpret data
> > in any way, if you want to stick a bunch of big honking literals in
> > Zemantic then it must let you do it.  MD5 hashing would be an
> > "interpretation"   While true that big triples would be made much smaller
> > with this trick, it colapses the literal value, which RDF defines as
> > atomic.
>
> I don't think that we *want* to store the body in Zemantic.

I don't think we want Zemantic to know what a "body" is, or any other concept.  
I agree using the body as a key is possibly absurd.

>
> > In the near future when 3.1 is released, this problem will go away,
> > you'll put your text indexeable content in a catalog and your RDF graph
> > in a Zemantic and probably not stuff then entire message body into the
> > RDF graph.
>
> Then we will still need a way to join the results of a query against
> Zemantic's own triples with a query against the external text index.

Right, but I don't see the relationship between zemantic and a catalog as 
being external.  The coupling between a catalog, which does interpretation of 
the RDF graph, and zemantic, which holds the "shape" of the graph, is pretty 
tight.  I don't expect a catalog being used as a zemantic interpretation to 
be used for anything else.

So the joint is tight, they share the same integer doc ids, etc.  Actually I'm 
beginning to think maybe a zemantic RDF graph should be a container for any 
number of catalogs whose sole purpose is to interpret the data in the graph.

-Michel