3 ms·

No, it’s not even good for that. The fact you need yo reify properties (relationships) to annotate them is a big failure, which is not present in more general g

No, it’s not even good for that. The fact you need yo reify properties (relationships) to annotate them is a big failure, which is not present in more general graph models.

Karrot_Kream 6y ago
I think this is a matter of opinion. I'm personally a fan of reified properties, but this is the source of differences between property graph databases and RDF triple stores.
simongray 6y ago
Works fine for my use cases (e.g. representing multiple WordNets as labeled property graphs in Neo4j) and I quite like the simplicity of data modelling based on triplets of data literals. What do you suggest as an alternative to RDF?
emmanueloga_ 6y ago
Not true. See "reification is a red herring" [1]. Also, there's now a more natural way to add properties to relationships if really needed, it is call RDF* [2], and it is already implemented of a lot of triplestores, including RDF4J, Jena, StarDog and more. 1: http://www.snee.com/bobdc.blog/2018/04/reification-is-a-red-herring.html http://www.snee.com/bobdc.blog/2018/04/reification-is-a-red-... 2: https://blog.liu.se/olafhartig/2019/01/10/position-statement-rdf-star-and-sparql-star/ https://blog.liu.se/olafhartig/2019/01/10/position-statement...