couchdb-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Parnell Springmeyer <>
Subject Re: CouchDB x RDF databases comparison
Date Thu, 07 May 2009 19:40:50 GMT
You can store RDF documents or, even simpler, triples in CouchDB documents.
Query for the data and perform your RDF parsing/manipulation in-application.

Sure, it isn't as sweet as a triple store with a SPARQL endpoint - but, it's
hella better than using Sesame or any of those other Java implementations.
They can't scale - whereas CouchDB can; you can also scale your application
to handle the RDF processing it does in the application logic; as you have
more control over that.

I am also in the process (have been for a while) of building an Erlang
backed triplestore. Not a light undertaking by anymeans and I may be using
CouchDB to build that ontop of it (license permitting).

CouchDB + RDF = FTW

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 2:15 AM, Demetrius Nunes <>wrote:

> Hi there,
> We are evaluating new technologies for managing semi-structured data and
> documents in one of our applications. We've got tired of wrestling
> relational databases for this.
> I would like to know why would I prefer to use CouchDB instead of a RDF
> database, such as Sesame ou Mulgara.
> I know some of the RDF advantages, such as open standards,
> interoperability,
> rules engines, semantic queries, community and tool support, maturity, etc.
> But I really like the simplicity of the CouchDB model.
> Can anyone enlighten me?
> Thanks a lot,
> Demetrius
> --
> ____________________________

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message