On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 1:28 PM, BRIAN TINGLE <brian.tingle.cdlib.org@
gmail.com> wrote:

>
> "graph processing stack on top of a graph database" resonates with me more
> than "RDF store with SPARQL access" but I guess they are
> basically/functionally saying the same thing?  Maybe the "graph database"
> way of thinking about it is  potentially less interoperable open data
> linking way? -- but I've always believed you have to operate before you can
> interoperate.
>

An RDF Triple Store is a specific type of graph database, and SPARQL is a
specific way to access it.  Neo4J is another type of graph database, and the
Gremlin/Pipes/Blueprints/Rexster stack is a way to access it.

At the heart of the matter is how you model your graph, and RDF is the
standard way to do that. You can store RDF in Neo4J and it has a SPARQL
interface.

In terms of operating and interoperating, it would seem to me that the
easiest way forwards is to ignore any RDF ontologies you don't understand
and simply create new relationships, such as snac:correspondedWith and
snac:associatedWith ... you or other people can assert equivalencies later
:)

HTH,

Rob Sanderson