A question has come up in my organization concerning the storage/access of RDF/OWL using flat files versus TDB. There is interest in supporting versioning of the ontologies which can be done at file system level. I would assume as the size of the RDF increases (number of triples), it becomes faster to use TDB. I also assume it is much easier to leverage the indexing of TDB versus what would need to be done using flat files, though for some of our application needs, the organizational structure of the file system seems well suited.
I am interested in hearing if anyone has any direct experience comparing these two alternatives and whether there are any good rules of thumb about when one approach becomes better than the other. Personally, except for the versioning benefit of storing RDF/OWL in separate files in the file system, I would think that in most cases TDB would be a better choice, but I’d like to hear what others have to say about it.
David Jordan
Senior Software Developer
SAS Institute Inc.
Health & Life Sciences, Research & Development
Bldg R ▪ Office 4467
600 Research Drive ▪ Cary, NC 27513
Tel: 919 531 1233 ▪ david.jordan [ at ] sas.com<mailto:david.jordan [ at ] sas.com
www.sas.com<http://www.sas.com/>
SAS® … THE POWER TO KNOW®
I am interested in hearing if anyone has any direct experience comparing these two alternatives and whether there are any good rules of thumb about when one approach becomes better than the other. Personally, except for the versioning benefit of storing RDF/OWL in separate files in the file system, I would think that in most cases TDB would be a better choice, but I’d like to hear what others have to say about it.
David Jordan
Senior Software Developer
SAS Institute Inc.
Health & Life Sciences, Research & Development
Bldg R ▪ Office 4467
600 Research Drive ▪ Cary, NC 27513
Tel: 919 531 1233 ▪ david.jordan [ at ] sas.com<mailto:david.jordan [ at ] sas.com
www.sas.com<http://www.sas.com/>
SAS® … THE POWER TO KNOW®