LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for BIBFRAME Archives


BIBFRAME Archives

BIBFRAME Archives


BIBFRAME@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME  July 2014

BIBFRAME July 2014

Subject:

Re: Deproliferation of Predicates

From:

"Cole, Timothy W" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 18 Jul 2014 21:44:43 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (44 lines)

Agreeing with Jörg in a slightly more long-winded way:

Creating additional predicates solely to improve query system performance seems a slippery slope -- akin to de-normalizing your relational db schema to make your SQL queries simpler. Everybody has done it, but if the project goes on long enough you usually wish you hadn't. Query engines get better and optimization / query anticipation strategies evolve. Predicates once declared are hard to deprecate. 

On the other hand, if we had no sub-properties (and no sub-classes) we'd just have RDF by itself, and that would not be enough. Domain-specific properties and classes are essential ways we instantiate shared understandings and agreements.

So I think the goal should be to justify the granularity based on the inflections and differences in meaning, not based on query performance. To me the distinction between authorityAssigner, classificationAssigner, and audienceAssigner seems weak. Do these distinctions reflect real specializations? Or did we get carried away? Certainly it's hard to imagine that the ranges of these predicates are or will become meaningfully different classes.  

I am a little more sympathetic to your bf:xxxValue differentiation example. Seems there could be a distinction made in ranges.  But unless we are specific about differentiating ranges of these predicates, it's hard to justify them. And I don't think falling back on what are likely to be transient query performance issues is good enough.

-Tim Cole 
University of Illinois at UC
________________________________________
From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of [log in to unmask] [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 16:11
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Deproliferation of Predicates

This is funny and sad at the same time.

I suggest that Bibframe predicates should not follow software that can not scale with the triples, instead, software implementers should follow the Bibframe model. If there are too many triples, an inverted index of a search engine might help. Please do not make fundamental model design choices like a vocabulary that shall last for the next 40 years dependent on the behavior of a software product that exists today. Tomorrow, software will change.

Jörg


On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:45 PM, Ford, Kevin <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Dear Rob, all,

Thanks for this.   We here had a quick chat about this list this morning.

One of the reasons for the predicate proliferation was to address query performance.

In our experience, when we’ve loaded gobs of triples into various stores, we often experienced much improved query performance when the predicate is itself fairly distinctive.  When querying for a value of a “common” predicate, then query performance declines.

For example, changing bf:identifierValue to bf:value jumps out in this case.    So this query:

SELECT ?s { ?s bf:value “1234567890” }

Will be considerably slower than

SELECT ?s { ?s bf:identifierValue “1234567890” }

Because the first query has to potentially interrogate so many more triples.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
July 2011
June 2011

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager