OpenLink Community Blog

In recent times a lot of the commentary and focus re. Virtuoso has centered on the RDF Quad Store and Linked Data. What sometimes gets overlooked is the sophisticated Virtual Database Engine that provides the foundation for all of Virtuoso's data integration capabilities.

In this post I provide a brief re-introduction to this essential aspect of Virtuoso.

What is it?

This component of Virtuoso is known as the Virtual Database Engine (VDBMS). It provides transparent high-performance and secure access to disparate data sources that are external to Virtuoso. It enables federated access and integration of data hosted by any ODBC- or JDBC-accessible RDBMS, RDF Store, XML database, or Document (Free Text)-oriented Content Management System. In addition, it facilitates integration with Web Services (SOAP-based SOA RPCs or REST-fully accessible Web Resources).

Why is it important?

In the most basic sense, you shouldn't need to upgrade your existing database engine version simply because your current DBMS and Data Access Driver combo isn't compatible with ODBC-compliant desktop tools such as Microsoft Access, Crystal Reports, BusinessObjects, Impromptu, or other of ODBC, JDBC, ADO.NET, or OLE DB-compliant applications. Simply place Virtuoso in front of your so-called "legacy database," and let it deliver the compliance levels sought by these tools

In addition, it's important to note that today's enterprise, through application evolution, company mergers, or acquisitions, is often faced with disparately-structured data residing in any number of line-of-business-oriented data silos. Compounding the problem is the exponential growth of user-generated data via new social media-oriented collaboration tools and platforms. For companies to cost-effectively harness the opportunities accorded by the increasing intersection between line-of-business applications and social media, virtualization of data silos must be achieved, and this virtualization must be delivered in a manner that doesn't prohibitively compromise performance or completely undermine security at either the enterprise or personal level. Again, this is what you get by simply installing Virtuoso.

How do I use it?

The VDBMS may be used in a variety of ways, depending on the data access and integration task at hand. Examples include:

Relational Database Federation

You can make a single ODBC, JDBC, ADO.NET, OLE DB, or XMLA connection to multiple ODBC- or JDBC-accessible RDBMS data sources, concurrently, with the ability to perform intelligent distributed joins against externally-hosted database tables. For instance, you can join internal human resources data against internal sales and external stock market data, even when the HR team uses Oracle, the Sales team uses Informix, and the Stock Market figures come from Ingres!

Conceptual Level Data Access using the RDF Model

You can construct RDF Model-based Conceptual Views atop Relational Data Sources. This is about generating HTTP-based Entity-Attribute-Value (E-A-V) graphs using data culled "on the fly" from native or external data sources (Relational Tables/Views, XML-based Web Services, or User Defined Types).

You can also derive RDF Model-based Conceptual Views from Web Resource transformations "on the fly" -- the Virtuoso Sponger (RDFizing middleware component) enables you to generate RDF Model Linked Data via a RESTful Web Service or within the process pipeline of the SPARQL query engine (i.e., you simply use the URL of a Web Resource in the FROM clause of a SPARQL query).

It's important to note that Views take the form of HTTP links that serve as both Data Source Names and Data Source Addresses. This enables you to query and explore relationships across entities (i.e., People, Places, and other Real World Things) via HTTP clients (e.g., Web Browsers) or directly via SPARQL Query Language constructs transmitted over HTTP.

Conceptual Level Data Access using ADO.NET Entity Frameworks

As an alternative to RDF, Virtuoso can expose ADO.NET Entity Frameworks-based Conceptual Views over Relational Data Sources. It achieves this by generating Entity Relationship graphs via its native ADO.NET Provider, exposing all externally attached ODBC- and JDBC-accessible data sources. In addition, the ADO.NET Provider supports direct access to Virtuoso's native RDF database engine, eliminating the need for resource intensive Entity Frameworks model transformations.

Related

• Attaching ODBC or JDBC accessible Relational Tables to Virtuoso
• Using an HTML based Wizard to Generate RDF based Linked Views over Relational Tables
• Screencast Demonstrating Wizard based generation of RDF based Linked Data Views Part 1
• Screencast Demonstrating Wizard based generation of RDF based Linked Data Views Part 1
• Generating RDF based Linked Data from non RDF based Web Resources via the Sponger
• Building ADO.NET based Entity Frameworks Views over Relational Data
• Building Silverlight Rich Internat Applicaitons using ADO.NET, Entity Frameworks, and RDF based Linked Data.

Microsoft SQL Server's Linked Server Promise

The ability to use distributed queries -- i.e., to issue SQL queries against any OLE-DB-accessible back end -- via Linked Servers.

The promise fails to materialize, primarily because while there are several ways of issuing such distributed queries, none of them work with all data access providers, and even for those that do, results received via different methods may differ.

Compounding the issue, there are specific configuration options which must be set correctly, often differing from defaults, to permit such things as "ad-hoc distributed queries".

Common tools that are typically used with such Linked Servers include SSIS and DTS. Such generic tools typically rely on four-part naming for their queries, expecting SQL Server to properly rewrite remotely executed queries for the DBMS engine which ultimately executes them.

The most common cause of failure is that when SQL Server rewrites a query, it typically does so using SQL-92 syntax, regardless of the back-end's abilities, and using the Transact-SQL dialect for implementation-specific query syntaxes, regardless of the back-end's dialect. This leads to problems especially when the Linked Server is an older variant which doesn't support SQL-92 (e.g., Progress 8.x or earlier, Informix 7 or earlier), or which SQL dialect differs substantially from Transact-SQL (e.g., Informix, Progress, MySQL, etc.).

Basic Four-Part Naming

SELECT *
  FROM linked_server.[catalog].[schema].object

Four-part naming presumes that you have pre-defined a Linked Server, and executes the query on SQL Server. SQL Server decides what if any sub- or partial-queries to execute on the linked server, tends not to use appropriate syntax for these, and usually does not take advantage of linked server or provider features.

OpenQuery

SELECT *
  FROM OPENQUERY ( linked_server , 'query' )

OpenQuery also presumes that you have pre-defined a Linked Server, but executes the query as a "pass-through", handing it directly to the remote provider. Features of the remote server and the data access provider may be taken advantage of, but only if the query author knows about them.

From the product docs:

SQL Server's Linked Server extension executes the specified pass-through query on the specified linked server. This server is an OLE DB data source. OPENQUERY can be referenced in the FROM clause of a query as if it were a table name. OPENQUERY can also be referenced as the target table of an INSERT, UPDATE, or DELETE statement. This is subject to the capabilities of the OLE DB provider. Although the query may return multiple result sets, OPENQUERY returns only the first one.

...

OPENQUERY does not accept variables for its arguments. OPENQUERY cannot be used to execute extended stored procedures on a linked server. However, an extended stored procedure can be executed on a linked server by using a four-part name.

OpenRowset

SELECT *
  FROM OPENROWSET
    ( 'provider_name' ,
      'datasource' ; 'user_id' ; 'password',
      { [ catalog. ] [ schema. ] object | 'query' }
    )

OpenRowset does not require a pre-defined Linked Server, but does require the user to know what data access providers are available on the SQL Server host, and how to manually construct a valid connection string for the chosen provider. It does permit both "pass-through" and "local execution" queries, which can lead to confusion when the results differ (as they regularly will).

More from product docs:

Includes all connection information that is required to access remote data from an OLE DB data source. This method is an alternative to accessing tables in a linked server and is a one-time, ad hoc method of connecting and accessing remote data by using OLE DB. For more frequent references to OLE DB data sources, use linked servers instead. For more information, see Linking Servers. The OPENROWSET function can be referenced in the FROM clause of a query as if it were a table name. The OPENROWSET function can also be referenced as the target table of an INSERT, UPDATE, or DELETE statement, subject to the capabilities of the OLE DB provider. Although the query might return multiple result sets, OPENROWSET returns only the first one.

OPENROWSET also supports bulk operations through a built-in BULK provider that enables data from a file to be read and returned as a rowset.

...

OPENROWSET can be used to access remote data from OLE DB data sources only when the DisallowAdhocAccess registry option is explicitly set to 0 for the specified provider, and the Ad Hoc Distributed Queries advanced configuration option is enabled. When these options are not set, the default behavior does not allow for ad hoc access. When accessing remote OLE DB data sources, the login identity of trusted connections is not automatically delegated from the server on which the client is connected to the server that is being queried. Authentication delegation must be configured. For more information, see Configuring Linked Servers for Delegation.

Catalog and schema names are required if the OLE DB provider supports multiple catalogs and schemas in the specified data source. Values for catalog and schema can be omitted when the OLE DB provider does not support them. If the provider supports only schema names, a two-part name of the form schema.object must be specified. If the provider supports only catalog names, a three-part name of the form catalog.schema.object must be specified. Three-part names must be specified for pass-through queries that use the SQL Server Native Client OLE DB provider. For more information, see Transact-SQL Syntax Conventions (Transact-SQL). OPENROWSET does not accept variables for its arguments.

OpenDataSource

SELECT *
  FROM OPENDATASOURCE
    ( 'provider_name',
      'provider_specific_datasource_specification'
    ).[catalog].[schema].object

As with basic four-part naming, OpenDataSource executes the query on SQL Server. SQL Server decides what if any sub-queries to execute on the linked server, tends not to use appropriate syntax for these, and usually does not take advantage of linked server or provider features.

Additional doc excerpts

Provides ad hoc connection information as part of a four-part object name without using a linked server name.

...

OPENDATASOURCE can be used to access remote data from OLE DB data sources only when the DisallowAdhocAccess registry option is explicitly set to 0 for the specified provider, and the Ad Hoc Distributed Queries advanced configuration option is enabled. When these options are not set, the default behavior does not allow for ad hoc access.

The OPENDATASOURCE function can be used in the same Transact-SQL syntax locations as a linked-server name. Therefore, OPENDATASOURCE can be used as the first part of a four-part name that refers to a table or view name in a SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, or DELETE statement, or to a remote stored procedure in an EXECUTE statement. When executing remote stored procedures, OPENDATASOURCE should refer to another instance of SQL Server. OPENDATASOURCE does not accept variables for its arguments.

Like the OPENROWSET function, OPENDATASOURCE should only reference OLE DB data sources that are accessed infrequently. Define a linked server for any data sources accessed more than several times. Neither OPENDATASOURCE nor OPENROWSET provide all the functionality of linked-server definitions, such as security management and the ability to query catalog information. All connection information, including passwords, must be provided every time that OPENDATASOURCE is called.

Virtuoso's Virtual Database Promise & Deliverables

The ability to link objects (tables, views, stored procedures) from any ODBC-accessible data source. This includes any JDBC-accessible data source, through the OpenLink ODBC Driver for JDBC Data Sources.

There are no limitations on the data types which can be queried or read, nor must the target DBMS have primary keys set on linked tables or views.

All linked objects may be used in single-site or distributed queries, and the user need not know anything about the actual data structure, including whether the objects being queried are remote or local to Virtuoso -- all objects are made to appear as part of a Virtuoso-local schema.

Oracle Gateway Promise

Ability to use distributed queries over a generic connectivity gateway (HSODBC, DG4ODBC) -- i.e., to issue SQL queries against any ODBC- or OLE-DB-accessible linked back end.

Reality

Promise fails to materialize for several reasons. Immediate limitations include:

• All tables locked by a FOR UPDATE clause and all tables with LONG columns selected by the query must be located in the same external database.
• Distributed queries cannot select user-defined types or object REF datatypes on remote tables.

In addition to the above, which apply to database-specific heterogeneous environments, the database-agnostic generic connectivity components have the following limitations:

• A table including a BLOB column must have a separate column that serves as a primary key.
• BLOB and CLOB data cannot be read by passthrough queries.
• Updates or deletes that include unsupported functions within a WHERE clause are not allowed.
• Generic Connectivity does not support stored procedures.
• Generic Connectivity agents cannot participate in distributed transactions; they support single-site transactions only.
• Generic Connectivity does not support multithreaded agents.
• Updating LONG columns with bind variables is not supported.
• Generic Connectivity does not support ROWIDs.

Compounding the issue, the HSODBC and DG4ODBC generic connectivity agents perform many of their functions by brute-force methods. Rather than interrogating the data access provider (whether ODBC or OLE DB) or DBMS to which they are connected, to learn their capabilities, many things are done by using the lowest possible function.

For instance, when a SELECT COUNT (*) FROM table@link is issued through Oracle SQL, the target DBMS doesn't simply perform a SELECT COUNT (*) FROM table. Rather, it performs a SELECT * FROM table which is used to inventory all columns in the table, and then performs and fully retrieves SELECT field FROM table into an internal temporary table, where it does the COUNT (*) itself, locally. Testing has confirmed this process to be the case despite Oracle documentation stating that target data sources must support COUNT (*) (among other functions).

Virtuoso's Virtual Database Comparison

The Virtuoso Universal Server will link/attach objects (tables, views, stored procedures) from any ODBC-accessible data source. This includes any JDBC-accessible data source, through the OpenLink ODBC Driver for JDBC Data Sources.

There are no limitations on the data types which can be queried or read, nor must the target DBMS have primary keys set on linked tables or views.

All linked objects may be used in single-site or distributed queries, and the user need not know anything about the actual data structure, including whether the objects being queried are remote or local to Virtuoso -- all objects are made to appear as part of a Virtuoso-local schema.

1. It isn't World Wide Web Specific (HTTP != World Wide Web)
2. It isn't Open Data Specific
3. It isn't about "Free" (Beer or Speech)
4. It isn't about Markup (so don't expect to grok it via "markup first" approach)
5. It's about Hyperdata - the use of HTTP and REST to deliver a powerful platform agnostic mechanism for Data Reference, Access, and Integration.

When trying to understand HTTP based Linked Data, especially if you're well versed in DBMS technology use (User, Power User, Architect, Analyst, DBA, or Programmer) think:

• Open Database Connectivity (ODBC) without operating system, data model, or wire-protocol specificity or lock-in potential
• Java Database Connectivity (JDBC) without programming language specificity
• ADO.NET without .NET runtime specificity and .NET bound language specificity
• OLE-DB without Windows operating system & programming language specificity
• XMLA without XML format specificity - with Tabular and Multidimensional results formats expressible in a variety of data representation formats.
• All of the above scoped to the Record rather than Container level, with Generic HTTP scheme URIs associated with each Record, Field, and Field value (optionally)

Remember the need for Data Access & Integration technology is the by product of the following realities:

1. Human curated data is ultimately dirty, because:
   • our thick thumbs, inattention, distractions, and general discomfort with typing, make typos prevalent
   • database engines exist for a variety of data models - Graph, Relational, Hierarchical;
   • within databases you have different record container/partition names e.g. Table Names;
   • within a database record container you have records that are really aspects of the same thing (different keys exist in a plethora of operational / line of business systems that expose aspects of the same entity e.g., customer data that spans Accounts, CRM, ERP application databases);
   • different field names (one database has "EMP" while another has "Employee") for the same record
   .
2. Units of measurement is driven by locale, the UK office wants to see sales in Pounds Sterling while the French office prefers Euros etc.
3. All of the above is subject to context halos which can be quite granular re. sensitivity e.g. staff travel between locations that alter locales and their roles; basically, profiles matters a lot.

Related

• ODBC and WODBC (Web Open Database Connectivity) Comparison
• Creating, Deploying, and Exploiting Linked Data Presentation
• Open Data Protocol Project

(Third of five posts related to the WWW 2009 conference, held the week of April 20, 2009.)

There are some points that came up in conversation at WWW 2009 that I will reiterate here. We find there is still some lack of clarity in the product image, so I will here condense it.

Virtuoso is a DBMS. We pitch it primarily to the data web space because this is where we see the emerging frontier. Virtuoso does both SQL and SPARQL and can do both at large scale and high performance. The popular perception of RDF and Relational models as mutually exclusive and antagonistic poles is based on the poor scalability of early RDF implementations. What we do is to have all the RDF specifics, like IRIs and typed literals as native SQL types, and to have a cost based optimizer that knows about this all.

If you want application-specific data structures as opposed to a schema-agnostic quad-store model (triple + graph-name), then Virtuoso can give you this too. Rendering application specific data structures as RDF applies equally to relational data in non-Virtuoso databases because Virtuoso SQL can federate tables from heterogenous DBMS.

On top of this, there is a web server built in, so that no extra server is needed for web services, web pages, and the like.

Installation is simple, just one exe and one config file. There is a huge amount of code in installers — application code and test suites and such — but none of this is needed when you deploy. Scale goes from a 25MB memory footprint on the desktop to hundreds of gigabytes of RAM and endless terabytes of disk on shared-nothing clusters.

Clusters (coming in Release 6) and SQL federation are commercial only; the rest can be had under GPL.

To condense further:

• Scalable Delivery of Linked Data
• SPARQL and SQL
  • Arbitrary RDF Data + Relational
  • Also From 3rd Party RDBMS
• Easy Deployment
• Standard Interfaces
  • ODBC, JDBC, OLE DB, ADO.NET, XMLA
  • Jena, Sesame, etc.
  • All Web Protocols

(Third of five posts related to the WWW 2009 conference, held the week of April 20, 2009.)

There are some points that came up in conversation at WWW 2009 that I will reiterate here. We find there is still some lack of clarity in the product image, so I will here condense it.

Virtuoso is a DBMS. We pitch it primarily to the data web space because this is where we see the emerging frontier. Virtuoso does both SQL and SPARQL and can do both at large scale and high performance. The popular perception of RDF and Relational models as mutually exclusive and antagonistic poles is based on the poor scalability of early RDF implementations. What we do is to have all the RDF specifics, like IRIs and typed literals as native SQL types, and to have a cost based optimizer that knows about this all.

If you want application-specific data structures as opposed to a schema-agnostic quad-store model (triple + graph-name), then Virtuoso can give you this too. Rendering application specific data structures as RDF applies equally to relational data in non-Virtuoso databases because Virtuoso SQL can federate tables from heterogenous DBMS.

On top of this, there is a web server built in, so that no extra server is needed for web services, web pages, and the like.

Installation is simple, just one exe and one config file. There is a huge amount of code in installers — application code and test suites and such — but none of this is needed when you deploy. Scale goes from a 25MB memory footprint on the desktop to hundreds of gigabytes of RAM and endless terabytes of disk on shared-nothing clusters.

Clusters (coming in Release 6) and SQL federation are commercial only; the rest can be had under GPL.

To condense further:

• Scalable Delivery of Linked Data
• SPARQL and SQL
  • Arbitrary RDF Data + Relational
  • Also From 3rd Party RDBMS
• Easy Deployment
• Standard Interfaces
  • ODBC, JDBC, OLE DB, ADO.NET, XMLA
  • Jena, Sesame, etc.
  • All Web Protocols

As the world works it way through a "once in a generation" economic crisis, the long overdue downgrade of the RDBMS, from its pivotal position at the apex of the data access and data management pyramid is nigh.

What is the Data Access, and Data Management Value Pyramid?

As depicted below, a top-down view of the data access and data management value chain. The term: apex, simply indicates value primacy, which takes the form of a data access API based entry point into a DBMS realm -- aligned to an underlying data model. Examples of data access APIs include: Native Call Level Interfaces (CLIs), ODBC, JDBC, ADO.NET, OLE-DB, XMLA, and Web Services.

The degree to which ad-hoc views of data managed by a DBMS can be produced and dispatched to relevant data consumers (e.g. people), without compromising concurrency, data durability, and security, collectively determine the "Agility Value Factor" (AVF) of a given DBMS. Remember, agility as the cornerstone of environmental adaptation is as old as the concept of evolution, and intrinsic to all pursuits of primacy.

In simpler business oriented terms, look at AVF as the degree to which DBMS technology affects the ability to effectively implement "Market Leadership Discipline" along the following pathways: innovation, operation excellence, or customer intimacy.

Why has RDBMS Primacy has Endured?

Historically, at least since the late '80s, the RDBMS genre of DBMS has consistently offered the highest AVF relative to other DBMS genres en route to primacy within the value pyramid. The desire to improve on paper reports and spreadsheets is basically what DBMS technology has fundamentally addressed to date, even though conceptual level interaction with data has never been its forte.

For more then 10 years -- at the very least -- limitations of the traditional RDBMS in the realm of conceptual level interaction with data across diverse data sources and schemas (enterprise, Web, and Internet) has been crystal clear to many RDBMS technology practitioners, as indicated by some of the quotes excerpted below:

"Future of Database Research is excellent, but what is the future of data?"

"..it is hard for me to disagree with the conclusions in this report. It captures exactly the right thoughts, and should be a must read for everyone involved in the area of databases and database research in particular."

-- Dr. Anant Jingran, CTO, IBM Information Management Systems, commenting on the 2007 RDBMS technology retreat attended by a number of key DBMS technology pioneers and researchers.

"One size fits all: A concept whose time has come and gone

1. They are direct descendants of System R and Ingres and were architected more than 25 years ago
2. They are advocating "one size fits all"; i.e. a single engine that solves all DBMS needs.

-- Prof. Michael Stonebreaker, one of the founding fathers of the RDBMS industry.

Until this point in time, the requisite confluence of "circumstantial pain" and "open standards" based technology required to enable an objective "compare and contrast" of RDBMS engine virtues and viable alternatives hasn't occurred. Thus, the RDBMS has endured it position of primacy albeit on a "one size fits all basis".

Circumstantial Pain

As mentioned earlier, we are in the midst of an economic crisis that is ultimately about a consistent inability to connect dots across a substrate of interlinked data sources that transcend traditional data access boundaries with high doses of schematic heterogeneity. Ironically, in a era of the dot-com, we haven't been able to make meaningful connections between relevant "real-world things" that extend beyond primitive data hosted database tables and content management style document containers; we've struggled to achieve this in the most basic sense, let alone evolve our ability to connect inline with the exponential rate at which the Internet & Web are spawning "universes of discourse" (data spaces) that emanate from user activity (within the enterprise and across the Internet & Web). In a nutshell, we haven't been able to upgrade our interaction with data such that "conceptual models" and resulting "context lenses" (or facets) become concrete; by this I mean: real-world entity interaction making its way into the computer realm as opposed to the impedance we all suffer today when we transition from conceptual model interaction (real-world) to logical model interaction (when dealing with RDBMS based data access and data management).

Here are some simple examples of what I can only best describe as: "critical dots unconnected", resulting from an inability to interact with data conceptually:

Financial regulatory bodies couldn't effectively discern that a Credit Default Swap is an Insurance policy in all but literal name. And in not doing so the cost of an unregulated insurance policy laid the foundation for exacerbating the toxicity of fatally flawed mortgage backed securities. Put simply: a flawed insurance policy was the fallback on a toxic security that financiers found exotic based on superficial packaging.

Banks still don't understand that capital really does exists in tangible and intangible forms; with the intangible being the variant that is inherently dynamic. For example, a tech companies intellectual capital far exceeds the value of fixture, fittings, and buildings, but you be amazed to find that in most cases this vital asset has not significant value when banks get down to the nitty gritty of debt collateral; instead, a buffer of flawed securitization has occurred atop a borderline static asset class covering the aforementioned buildings, fixtures, and fittings.

In the general enterprise arena, IT executives continued to "rip and replace" existing technology without ever effectively addressing the timeless inability to connect data across disparate data silos generated by internal enterprise applications, let alone the broader need to mesh data from the inside with external data sources. No correlations made between the growth of buzzwords and the compounding nature of data integration challenges. It's 2009 and only a miniscule number of executives dare fantasize about being anywhere within distance of the: relevant information at your fingertips vision.

Looking more holistically at data interaction in general, whether you interact with data in the enterprise space (i.e., at work) or on the Internet or Web, you ultimately are delving into a mishmash of disparate computer systems, applications, service (Web or SOA), and databases (of the RDBMS variety in a majority of cases) associated with a plethora of disparate schemas. Yes, but even today "rip and replace" is still the norm pushed by most vendors; pitting one mono culture against another as exemplified by irrelevances such as: FOSS/LAMP vs Commercial or Web vs. Enterprise, when none of this matters if the data access and integration issues are recognized let alone addressed (see: Applications are Like Fish and Data Like Wine).

Like the current credit-crunch, exponential growth of data originating from disparate application databases and associated schemas, within shrinking processing time frames, has triggered a rethinking of what defines data access and data management value today en route to an inevitable RDBMS downgrade within the value pyramid.

Technology

There have been many attempts to address real-world modeling requirements across the broader DBMS community from Object Databases to Object-Relational Databases, and more recently the emergence of simple Entity-Attribute-Value model DBMS engines. In all cases failure has come down to the existence of one or more of the following deficiencies, across each potential alternative:

1. Query language standardization - nothing close to SQL standardization
2. Data Access API standardization - nothing close to ODBC, JDBC, OLE-DB, or ADO.NET
3. Wire protocol standardization - nothing close to HTTP
4. Distributed Identity infrastructure - nothing close to the non-repudiatable digital Identity that foaf+ssl accords
5. Use of Identifiers as network based pointers to data sources - nothing close to RDF based Linked Data
6. Negotiable data representation - nothing close to Mime and HTTP based Content Negotiation
7. Scalability especially in the era of Internet & Web scale.

Entity-Attribute-Value with Classes & Relationships (EAV/CR) data models

A common characteristic shared by all post-relational DBMS management systems (from Object Relational to pure Object) is an orientation towards variations of EAV/CR based data models. Unfortunately, all efforts in the EAV/CR realm have typically suffered from at least one of the deficiencies listed above. In addition, the same "one DBMS model fits all" approach that lies at the heart of the RDBMS downgrade also exists in the EAV/CR realm.

What Comes Next?

The RDBMS is not going away (ever), but its era of primacy -- by virtue of its placement at the apex of the data access and data management value pyramid -- is over! I make this bold claim for the following reasons:

1. The Internet aided "Global Village" has brought "Open World" vs "Closed World" assumption issues to the fore e.g., the current global economic crisis remains centered on the inability to connect dots across "Open World" and "Closed World" data frontiers
2. Entity-Attribute-Value with Classes & Relationships (EAV/CR) based DBMS models are more effective when dealing with disparate data associated with disparate schemas, across disparate DBMS engines, host operating systems, and networks.

Based on the above, it is crystal clear that a different kind of DBMS -- one with higher AVF relative to the RDBMS -- needs to sit atop today's data access and data management value pyramid. The characteristics of this DBMS must include the following:

1. Every item of data (Datum/Entity/Object/Resource) has Identity
2. Identity is achieved via Identifiers that aren't locked at the DBMS, OS, Network, or Application levels
3. Object Identifiers and Object values are independent (extricably linked by association)
4. Object values should be de-referencable via Object Identifier
5. Representation of de-referenced value graph (entity, attributes, and values mesh) must be negotiable (i.e. content negotiation)
6. Structured query language must provide mechanism for Creation, Deletion, Updates, and Querying of data objects
7. Performance & Scalability across "Closed World" (enterprise) and "Open World" (Internet & Web) realms.

Quick recap, I am not saying that RDBMS engine technology is dead or obsolete. I am simply stating that the era of RDBMS primacy within the data access and data management value pyramid is over.

The problem domain (conceptual model views over heterogeneous data sources) at the apex of the aforementioned pyramid has simply evolved beyond the natural capabilities of the RDBMS which is rooted in "Closed World" assumptions re., data definition, access, and management. The need to maintain domain based conceptual interaction with data is now palpable at every echelon within our "Global Village" - Internet, Web, Enterprise, Government etc.

It is my personal view that an EAV/CR model based DBMS, with support for the seven items enumerated above, can trigger the long anticipated RDBMS downgrade. Such a DBMS would be inherently multi-model because you would need to the best of RDBMS and EAV/CR model engines in a single product, with in-built support for HTTP and other Internet protocols in order to effectively address data representation and serialization issues.

EAV/CR Oriented Data Access & Management Technology

Examples of contemporary EAV/CR frameworks that provide concrete conceptual layers for data access and data management currently include:

• Resource Description Framework (RDF) - an EAV/CR based framework
• RDF Linked Data - EAV/CR based framework that mandates de-referencable HTTP based Identifiers
• ADO.NET Entity Frameworks - Microsoft .NET based EAV/CR framework
• Core Data Services - Mac OS X based EAV/CR framework that evolved from NeXT's Enterprise Object Frameworks (EOF).

The frameworks above provide the basis for a revised AVF pyramid, as depicted below, that reflects today's data access and management realities i.e., an Internet & Web driven global village comprised of interlinked distributed data objects, compatible with "Open World" assumptions.

Related

• How & Why Glue is Using Amazon SimpleDB
• Object Database Manifesto (Identity excerpt)
• Database Models Overview
• Ted Nelson Explaining Irregularity and Idiosyncrasy of Data Structures - ZigZag Demo

As the world works it way through a "once in a generation" economic crisis, the long overdue downgrade of the RDBMS, from its pivotal position at the apex of the data access and data management pyramid is nigh.

What is the Data Access, and Data Management Value Pyramid?

As depicted below, a top-down view of the data access and data management value chain. The term: apex, simply indicates value primacy, which takes the form of a data access API based entry point into a DBMS realm -- aligned to an underlying data model. Examples of data access APIs include: Native Call Level Interfaces (CLIs), ODBC, JDBC, ADO.NET, OLE-DB, XMLA, and Web Services.

The degree to which ad-hoc views of data managed by a DBMS can be produced and dispatched to relevant data consumers (e.g. people), without compromising concurrency, data durability, and security, collectively determine the "Agility Value Factor" (AVF) of a given DBMS. Remember, agility as the cornerstone of environmental adaptation is as old as the concept of evolution, and intrinsic to all pursuits of primacy.

In simpler business oriented terms, look at AVF as the degree to which DBMS technology affects the ability to effectively implement "Market Leadership Discipline" along the following pathways: innovation, operation excellence, or customer intimacy.

Why has RDBMS Primacy has Endured?

Historically, at least since the late '80s, the RDBMS genre of DBMS has consistently offered the highest AVF relative to other DBMS genres en route to primacy within the value pyramid. The desire to improve on paper reports and spreadsheets is basically what DBMS technology has fundamentally addressed to date, even though conceptual level interaction with data has never been its forte.

For more then 10 years -- at the very least -- limitations of the traditional RDBMS in the realm of conceptual level interaction with data across diverse data sources and schemas (enterprise, Web, and Internet) has been crystal clear to many RDBMS technology practitioners, as indicated by some of the quotes excerpted below:

"Future of Database Research is excellent, but what is the future of data?"

"..it is hard for me to disagree with the conclusions in this report. It captures exactly the right thoughts, and should be a must read for everyone involved in the area of databases and database research in particular."

-- Dr. Anant Jingran, CTO, IBM Information Management Systems, commenting on the 2007 RDBMS technology retreat attended by a number of key DBMS technology pioneers and researchers.

"One size fits all: A concept whose time has come and gone

1. They are direct descendants of System R and Ingres and were architected more than 25 years ago
2. They are advocating "one size fits all"; i.e. a single engine that solves all DBMS needs.

-- Prof. Michael Stonebreaker, one of the founding fathers of the RDBMS industry.

Until this point in time, the requisite confluence of "circumstantial pain" and "open standards" based technology required to enable an objective "compare and contrast" of RDBMS engine virtues and viable alternatives hasn't occurred. Thus, the RDBMS has endured it position of primacy albeit on a "one size fits all basis".

Circumstantial Pain

As mentioned earlier, we are in the midst of an economic crisis that is ultimately about a consistent inability to connect dots across a substrate of interlinked data sources that transcend traditional data access boundaries with high doses of schematic heterogeneity. Ironically, in a era of the dot-com, we haven't been able to make meaningful connections between relevant "real-world things" that extend beyond primitive data hosted database tables and content management style document containers; we've struggled to achieve this in the most basic sense, let alone evolve our ability to connect inline with the exponential rate at which the Internet & Web are spawning "universes of discourse" (data spaces) that emanate from user activity (within the enterprise and across the Internet & Web). In a nutshell, we haven't been able to upgrade our interaction with data such that "conceptual models" and resulting "context lenses" (or facets) become concrete; by this I mean: real-world entity interaction making its way into the computer realm as opposed to the impedance we all suffer today when we transition from conceptual model interaction (real-world) to logical model interaction (when dealing with RDBMS based data access and data management).

Here are some simple examples of what I can only best describe as: "critical dots unconnected", resulting from an inability to interact with data conceptually:

Financial regulatory bodies couldn't effectively discern that a Credit Default Swap is an Insurance policy in all but literal name. And in not doing so the cost of an unregulated insurance policy laid the foundation for exacerbating the toxicity of fatally flawed mortgage backed securities. Put simply: a flawed insurance policy was the fallback on a toxic security that financiers found exotic based on superficial packaging.

Banks still don't understand that capital really does exists in tangible and intangible forms; with the intangible being the variant that is inherently dynamic. For example, a tech companies intellectual capital far exceeds the value of fixture, fittings, and buildings, but you be amazed to find that in most cases this vital asset has not significant value when banks get down to the nitty gritty of debt collateral; instead, a buffer of flawed securitization has occurred atop a borderline static asset class covering the aforementioned buildings, fixtures, and fittings.

In the general enterprise arena, IT executives continued to "rip and replace" existing technology without ever effectively addressing the timeless inability to connect data across disparate data silos generated by internal enterprise applications, let alone the broader need to mesh data from the inside with external data sources. No correlations made between the growth of buzzwords and the compounding nature of data integration challenges. It's 2009 and only a miniscule number of executives dare fantasize about being anywhere within distance of the: relevant information at your fingertips vision.

Looking more holistically at data interaction in general, whether you interact with data in the enterprise space (i.e., at work) or on the Internet or Web, you ultimately are delving into a mishmash of disparate computer systems, applications, service (Web or SOA), and databases (of the RDBMS variety in a majority of cases) associated with a plethora of disparate schemas. Yes, but even today "rip and replace" is still the norm pushed by most vendors; pitting one mono culture against another as exemplified by irrelevances such as: FOSS/LAMP vs Commercial or Web vs. Enterprise, when none of this matters if the data access and integration issues are recognized let alone addressed (see: Applications are Like Fish and Data Like Wine).

Like the current credit-crunch, exponential growth of data originating from disparate application databases and associated schemas, within shrinking processing time frames, has triggered a rethinking of what defines data access and data management value today en route to an inevitable RDBMS downgrade within the value pyramid.

Technology

There have been many attempts to address real-world modeling requirements across the broader DBMS community from Object Databases to Object-Relational Databases, and more recently the emergence of simple Entity-Attribute-Value model DBMS engines. In all cases failure has come down to the existence of one or more of the following deficiencies, across each potential alternative:

1. Query language standardization - nothing close to SQL standardization
2. Data Access API standardization - nothing close to ODBC, JDBC, OLE-DB, or ADO.NET
3. Wire protocol standardization - nothing close to HTTP
4. Distributed Identity infrastructure - nothing close to the non-repudiatable digital Identity that foaf+ssl accords
5. Use of Identifiers as network based pointers to data sources - nothing close to RDF based Linked Data
6. Negotiable data representation - nothing close to Mime and HTTP based Content Negotiation
7. Scalability especially in the era of Internet & Web scale.

Entity-Attribute-Value with Classes & Relationships (EAV/CR) data models

A common characteristic shared by all post-relational DBMS management systems (from Object Relational to pure Object) is an orientation towards variations of EAV/CR based data models. Unfortunately, all efforts in the EAV/CR realm have typically suffered from at least one of the deficiencies listed above. In addition, the same "one DBMS model fits all" approach that lies at the heart of the RDBMS downgrade also exists in the EAV/CR realm.

What Comes Next?

The RDBMS is not going away (ever), but its era of primacy -- by virtue of its placement at the apex of the data access and data management value pyramid -- is over! I make this bold claim for the following reasons:

1. The Internet aided "Global Village" has brought "Open World" vs "Closed World" assumption issues to the fore e.g., the current global economic crisis remains centered on the inability to connect dots across "Open World" and "Closed World" data frontiers
2. Entity-Attribute-Value with Classes & Relationships (EAV/CR) based DBMS models are more effective when dealing with disparate data associated with disparate schemas, across disparate DBMS engines, host operating systems, and networks.

Based on the above, it is crystal clear that a different kind of DBMS -- one with higher AVF relative to the RDBMS -- needs to sit atop today's data access and data management value pyramid. The characteristics of this DBMS must include the following:

1. Every item of data (Datum/Entity/Object/Resource) has Identity
2. Identity is achieved via Identifiers that aren't locked at the DBMS, OS, Network, or Application levels
3. Object Identifiers and Object values are independent (extricably linked by association)
4. Object values should be de-referencable via Object Identifier
5. Representation of de-referenced value graph (entity, attributes, and values mesh) must be negotiable (i.e. content negotiation)
6. Structured query language must provide mechanism for Creation, Deletion, Updates, and Querying of data objects
7. Performance & Scalability across "Closed World" (enterprise) and "Open World" (Internet & Web) realms.

Quick recap, I am not saying that RDBMS engine technology is dead or obsolete. I am simply stating that the era of RDBMS primacy within the data access and data management value pyramid is over.

The problem domain (conceptual model views over heterogeneous data sources) at the apex of the aforementioned pyramid has simply evolved beyond the natural capabilities of the RDBMS which is rooted in "Closed World" assumptions re., data definition, access, and management. The need to maintain domain based conceptual interaction with data is now palpable at every echelon within our "Global Village" - Internet, Web, Enterprise, Government etc.

It is my personal view that an EAV/CR model based DBMS, with support for the seven items enumerated above, can trigger the long anticipated RDBMS downgrade. Such a DBMS would be inherently multi-model because you would need to the best of RDBMS and EAV/CR model engines in a single product, with in-built support for HTTP and other Internet protocols in order to effectively address data representation and serialization issues.

EAV/CR Oriented Data Access & Management Technology

Examples of contemporary EAV/CR frameworks that provide concrete conceptual layers for data access and data management currently include:

• Resource Description Framework (RDF) - an EAV/CR based framework
• RDF Linked Data - EAV/CR based framework that mandates de-referencable HTTP based Identifiers
• ADO.NET Entity Frameworks - Microsoft .NET based EAV/CR framework
• Core Data Services - Mac OS X based EAV/CR framework that evolved from NeXT's Enterprise Object Frameworks (EOF).

The frameworks above provide the basis for a revised AVF pyramid, as depicted below, that reflects today's data access and management realities i.e., an Internet & Web driven global village comprised of interlinked distributed data objects, compatible with "Open World" assumptions.

Related

• How & Why Glue is Using Amazon SimpleDB
• Object Database Manifesto (Identity excerpt)
• Database Models Overview
• Ted Nelson Explaining Irregularity and Idiosyncrasy of Data Structures - ZigZag Demo

As the world works it way through a "once in a generation" economic crisis, the long overdue downgrade of the RDBMS, from its pivotal position at the apex of the data access and data management pyramid is nigh.

What is the Data Access, and Data Management Value Pyramid?

As depicted below, a top-down view of the data access and data management value chain. The term: apex, simply indicates value primacy, which takes the form of a data access API based entry point into a DBMS realm -- aligned to an underlying data model. Examples of data access APIs include: Native Call Level Interfaces (CLIs), ODBC, JDBC, ADO.NET, OLE-DB, XMLA, and Web Services.

The degree to which ad-hoc views of data managed by a DBMS can be produced and dispatched to relevant data consumers (e.g. people), without compromising concurrency, data durability, and security, collectively determine the "Agility Value Factor" (AVF) of a given DBMS. Remember, agility as the cornerstone of environmental adaptation is as old as the concept of evolution, and intrinsic to all pursuits of primacy.

In simpler business oriented terms, look at AVF as the degree to which DBMS technology affects the ability to effectively implement "Market Leadership Discipline" along the following pathways: innovation, operation excellence, or customer intimacy.

Why has RDBMS Primacy has Endured?

Historically, at least since the late '80s, the RDBMS genre of DBMS has consistently offered the highest AVF relative to other DBMS genres en route to primacy within the value pyramid. The desire to improve on paper reports and spreadsheets is basically what DBMS technology has fundamentally addressed to date, even though conceptual level interaction with data has never been its forte.

For more then 10 years -- at the very least -- limitations of the traditional RDBMS in the realm of conceptual level interaction with data across diverse data sources and schemas (enterprise, Web, and Internet) has been crystal clear to many RDBMS technology practitioners, as indicated by some of the quotes excerpted below:

"Future of Database Research is excellent, but what is the future of data?"

"..it is hard for me to disagree with the conclusions in this report. It captures exactly the right thoughts, and should be a must read for everyone involved in the area of databases and database research in particular."

-- Dr. Anant Jingran, CTO, IBM Information Management Systems, commenting on the 2007 RDBMS technology retreat attended by a number of key DBMS technology pioneers and researchers.

"One size fits all: A concept whose time has come and gone

1. They are direct descendants of System R and Ingres and were architected more than 25 years ago
2. They are advocating "one size fits all"; i.e. a single engine that solves all DBMS needs.

-- Prof. Michael Stonebreaker, one of the founding fathers of the RDBMS industry.

Until this point in time, the requisite confluence of "circumstantial pain" and "open standards" based technology required to enable an objective "compare and contrast" of RDBMS engine virtues and viable alternatives hasn't occurred. Thus, the RDBMS has endured it position of primacy albeit on a "one size fits all basis".

Circumstantial Pain

As mentioned earlier, we are in the midst of an economic crisis that is ultimately about a consistent inability to connect dots across a substrate of interlinked data sources that transcend traditional data access boundaries with high doses of schematic heterogeneity. Ironically, in a era of the dot-com, we haven't been able to make meaningful connections between relevant "real-world things" that extend beyond primitive data hosted database tables and content management style document containers; we've struggled to achieve this in the most basic sense, let alone evolve our ability to connect inline with the exponential rate at which the Internet & Web are spawning "universes of discourse" (data spaces) that emanate from user activity (within the enterprise and across the Internet & Web). In a nutshell, we haven't been able to upgrade our interaction with data such that "conceptual models" and resulting "context lenses" (or facets) become concrete; by this I mean: real-world entity interaction making its way into the computer realm as opposed to the impedance we all suffer today when we transition from conceptual model interaction (real-world) to logical model interaction (when dealing with RDBMS based data access and data management).

Here are some simple examples of what I can only best describe as: "critical dots unconnected", resulting from an inability to interact with data conceptually:

Financial regulatory bodies couldn't effectively discern that a Credit Default Swap is an Insurance policy in all but literal name. And in not doing so the cost of an unregulated insurance policy laid the foundation for exacerbating the toxicity of fatally flawed mortgage backed securities. Put simply: a flawed insurance policy was the fallback on a toxic security that financiers found exotic based on superficial packaging.

Banks still don't understand that capital really does exists in tangible and intangible forms; with the intangible being the variant that is inherently dynamic. For example, a tech companies intellectual capital far exceeds the value of fixture, fittings, and buildings, but you be amazed to find that in most cases this vital asset has not significant value when banks get down to the nitty gritty of debt collateral; instead, a buffer of flawed securitization has occurred atop a borderline static asset class covering the aforementioned buildings, fixtures, and fittings.

In the general enterprise arena, IT executives continued to "rip and replace" existing technology without ever effectively addressing the timeless inability to connect data across disparate data silos generated by internal enterprise applications, let alone the broader need to mesh data from the inside with external data sources. No correlations made between the growth of buzzwords and the compounding nature of data integration challenges. It's 2009 and only a miniscule number of executives dare fantasize about being anywhere within distance of the: relevant information at your fingertips vision.

Looking more holistically at data interaction in general, whether you interact with data in the enterprise space (i.e., at work) or on the Internet or Web, you ultimately are delving into a mishmash of disparate computer systems, applications, service (Web or SOA), and databases (of the RDBMS variety in a majority of cases) associated with a plethora of disparate schemas. Yes, but even today "rip and replace" is still the norm pushed by most vendors; pitting one mono culture against another as exemplified by irrelevances such as: FOSS/LAMP vs Commercial or Web vs. Enterprise, when none of this matters if the data access and integration issues are recognized let alone addressed (see: Applications are Like Fish and Data Like Wine).

Like the current credit-crunch, exponential growth of data originating from disparate application databases and associated schemas, within shrinking processing time frames, has triggered a rethinking of what defines data access and data management value today en route to an inevitable RDBMS downgrade within the value pyramid.

Technology

There have been many attempts to address real-world modeling requirements across the broader DBMS community from Object Databases to Object-Relational Databases, and more recently the emergence of simple Entity-Attribute-Value model DBMS engines. In all cases failure has come down to the existence of one or more of the following deficiencies, across each potential alternative:

1. Query language standardization - nothing close to SQL standardization
2. Data Access API standardization - nothing close to ODBC, JDBC, OLE-DB, or ADO.NET
3. Wire protocol standardization - nothing close to HTTP
4. Distributed Identity infrastructure - nothing close to the non-repudiatable digital Identity that foaf+ssl accords
5. Use of Identifiers as network based pointers to data sources - nothing close to RDF based Linked Data
6. Negotiable data representation - nothing close to Mime and HTTP based Content Negotiation
7. Scalability especially in the era of Internet & Web scale.

Entity-Attribute-Value with Classes & Relationships (EAV/CR) data models

A common characteristic shared by all post-relational DBMS management systems (from Object Relational to pure Object) is an orientation towards variations of EAV/CR based data models. Unfortunately, all efforts in the EAV/CR realm have typically suffered from at least one of the deficiencies listed above. In addition, the same "one DBMS model fits all" approach that lies at the heart of the RDBMS downgrade also exists in the EAV/CR realm.

What Comes Next?

The RDBMS is not going away (ever), but its era of primacy -- by virtue of its placement at the apex of the data access and data management value pyramid -- is over! I make this bold claim for the following reasons:

1. The Internet aided "Global Village" has brought "Open World" vs "Closed World" assumption issues to the fore e.g., the current global economic crisis remains centered on the inability to connect dots across "Open World" and "Closed World" data frontiers
2. Entity-Attribute-Value with Classes & Relationships (EAV/CR) based DBMS models are more effective when dealing with disparate data associated with disparate schemas, across disparate DBMS engines, host operating systems, and networks.

Based on the above, it is crystal clear that a different kind of DBMS -- one with higher AVF relative to the RDBMS -- needs to sit atop today's data access and data management value pyramid. The characteristics of this DBMS must include the following:

1. Every item of data (Datum/Entity/Object/Resource) has Identity
2. Identity is achieved via Identifiers that aren't locked at the DBMS, OS, Network, or Application levels
3. Object Identifiers and Object values are independent (extricably linked by association)
4. Object values should be de-referencable via Object Identifier
5. Representation of de-referenced value graph (entity, attributes, and values mesh) must be negotiable (i.e. content negotiation)
6. Structured query language must provide mechanism for Creation, Deletion, Updates, and Querying of data objects
7. Performance & Scalability across "Closed World" (enterprise) and "Open World" (Internet & Web) realms.

Quick recap, I am not saying that RDBMS engine technology is dead or obsolete. I am simply stating that the era of RDBMS primacy within the data access and data management value pyramid is over.

The problem domain (conceptual model views over heterogeneous data sources) at the apex of the aforementioned pyramid has simply evolved beyond the natural capabilities of the RDBMS which is rooted in "Closed World" assumptions re., data definition, access, and management. The need to maintain domain based conceptual interaction with data is now palpable at every echelon within our "Global Village" - Internet, Web, Enterprise, Government etc.

It is my personal view that an EAV/CR model based DBMS, with support for the seven items enumerated above, can trigger the long anticipated RDBMS downgrade. Such a DBMS would be inherently multi-model because you would need to the best of RDBMS and EAV/CR model engines in a single product, with in-built support for HTTP and other Internet protocols in order to effectively address data representation and serialization issues.

EAV/CR Oriented Data Access & Management Technology

Examples of contemporary EAV/CR frameworks that provide concrete conceptual layers for data access and data management currently include:

• Resource Description Framework (RDF) - an EAV/CR based framework
• RDF Linked Data - EAV/CR based framework that mandates de-referencable HTTP based Identifiers
• ADO.NET Entity Frameworks - Microsoft .NET based EAV/CR framework
• Core Data Services - Mac OS X based EAV/CR framework that evolved from NeXT's Enterprise Object Frameworks (EOF).

The frameworks above provide the basis for a revised AVF pyramid, as depicted below, that reflects today's data access and management realities i.e., an Internet & Web driven global village comprised of interlinked distributed data objects, compatible with "Open World" assumptions.

Related

• The Semantic Way - Alan Cho's Summary of PwC 2009 tech forecast report on the Semantic Web
• Is the RDBMS Doomed - ReadWriteWeb Article
• Anti-RDBMS: a list of Distributed Key-Value Stores - by Richard Jones (CTO Last.FM)
• How & Why Glue is Using Amazon SimpleDB
• Object Database Manifesto (Identity excerpt)
• Database Models Overview
• Ted Nelson Explaining Irregularity and Idiosyncrasy of Data Structures - ZigZag Demo

As the world works it way through a "once in a generation" economic crisis, the long overdue downgrade of the RDBMS, from its pivotal position at the apex of the data access and data management pyramid is nigh.

What is the Data Access, and Data Management Value Pyramid?

As depicted below, a top-down view of the data access and data management value chain. The term: apex, simply indicates value primacy, which takes the form of a data access API based entry point into a DBMS realm -- aligned to an underlying data model. Examples of data access APIs include: Native Call Level Interfaces (CLIs), ODBC, JDBC, ADO.NET, OLE-DB, XMLA, and Web Services.

The degree to which ad-hoc views of data managed by a DBMS can be produced and dispatched to relevant data consumers (e.g. people), without compromising concurrency, data durability, and security, collectively determine the "Agility Value Factor" (AVF) of a given DBMS. Remember, agility as the cornerstone of environmental adaptation is as old as the concept of evolution, and intrinsic to all pursuits of primacy.

In simpler business oriented terms, look at AVF as the degree to which DBMS technology affects the ability to effectively implement "Market Leadership Discipline" along the following pathways: innovation, operation excellence, or customer intimacy.

Why has RDBMS Primacy has Endured?

Historically, at least since the late '80s, the RDBMS genre of DBMS has consistently offered the highest AVF relative to other DBMS genres en route to primacy within the value pyramid. The desire to improve on paper reports and spreadsheets is basically what DBMS technology has fundamentally addressed to date, even though conceptual level interaction with data has never been its forte.

For more then 10 years -- at the very least -- limitations of the traditional RDBMS in the realm of conceptual level interaction with data across diverse data sources and schemas (enterprise, Web, and Internet) has been crystal clear to many RDBMS technology practitioners, as indicated by some of the quotes excerpted below:

"Future of Database Research is excellent, but what is the future of data?"

"..it is hard for me to disagree with the conclusions in this report. It captures exactly the right thoughts, and should be a must read for everyone involved in the area of databases and database research in particular."

-- Dr. Anant Jingran, CTO, IBM Information Management Systems, commenting on the 2007 RDBMS technology retreat attended by a number of key DBMS technology pioneers and researchers.

"One size fits all: A concept whose time has come and gone

1. They are direct descendants of System R and Ingres and were architected more than 25 years ago
2. They are advocating "one size fits all"; i.e. a single engine that solves all DBMS needs.

-- Prof. Michael Stonebreaker, one of the founding fathers of the RDBMS industry.

Until this point in time, the requisite confluence of "circumstantial pain" and "open standards" based technology required to enable an objective "compare and contrast" of RDBMS engine virtues and viable alternatives hasn't occurred. Thus, the RDBMS has endured it position of primacy albeit on a "one size fits all basis".

Circumstantial Pain

As mentioned earlier, we are in the midst of an economic crisis that is ultimately about a consistent inability to connect dots across a substrate of interlinked data sources that transcend traditional data access boundaries with high doses of schematic heterogeneity. Ironically, in a era of the dot-com, we haven't been able to make meaningful connections between relevant "real-world things" that extend beyond primitive data hosted database tables and content management style document containers; we've struggled to achieve this in the most basic sense, let alone evolve our ability to connect inline with the exponential rate at which the Internet & Web are spawning "universes of discourse" (data spaces) that emanate from user activity (within the enterprise and across the Internet & Web). In a nutshell, we haven't been able to upgrade our interaction with data such that "conceptual models" and resulting "context lenses" (or facets) become concrete; by this I mean: real-world entity interaction making its way into the computer realm as opposed to the impedance we all suffer today when we transition from conceptual model interaction (real-world) to logical model interaction (when dealing with RDBMS based data access and data management).

Here are some simple examples of what I can only best describe as: "critical dots unconnected", resulting from an inability to interact with data conceptually:

Financial regulatory bodies couldn't effectively discern that a Credit Default Swap is an Insurance policy in all but literal name. And in not doing so the cost of an unregulated insurance policy laid the foundation for exacerbating the toxicity of fatally flawed mortgage backed securities. Put simply: a flawed insurance policy was the fallback on a toxic security that financiers found exotic based on superficial packaging.

Banks still don't understand that capital really does exists in tangible and intangible forms; with the intangible being the variant that is inherently dynamic. For example, a tech companies intellectual capital far exceeds the value of fixture, fittings, and buildings, but you be amazed to find that in most cases this vital asset has not significant value when banks get down to the nitty gritty of debt collateral; instead, a buffer of flawed securitization has occurred atop a borderline static asset class covering the aforementioned buildings, fixtures, and fittings.

In the general enterprise arena, IT executives continued to "rip and replace" existing technology without ever effectively addressing the timeless inability to connect data across disparate data silos generated by internal enterprise applications, let alone the broader need to mesh data from the inside with external data sources. No correlations made between the growth of buzzwords and the compounding nature of data integration challenges. It's 2009 and only a miniscule number of executives dare fantasize about being anywhere within distance of the: relevant information at your fingertips vision.

Looking more holistically at data interaction in general, whether you interact with data in the enterprise space (i.e., at work) or on the Internet or Web, you ultimately are delving into a mishmash of disparate computer systems, applications, service (Web or SOA), and databases (of the RDBMS variety in a majority of cases) associated with a plethora of disparate schemas. Yes, but even today "rip and replace" is still the norm pushed by most vendors; pitting one mono culture against another as exemplified by irrelevances such as: FOSS/LAMP vs Commercial or Web vs. Enterprise, when none of this matters if the data access and integration issues are recognized let alone addressed (see: Applications are Like Fish and Data Like Wine).

Like the current credit-crunch, exponential growth of data originating from disparate application databases and associated schemas, within shrinking processing time frames, has triggered a rethinking of what defines data access and data management value today en route to an inevitable RDBMS downgrade within the value pyramid.

Technology

There have been many attempts to address real-world modeling requirements across the broader DBMS community from Object Databases to Object-Relational Databases, and more recently the emergence of simple Entity-Attribute-Value model DBMS engines. In all cases failure has come down to the existence of one or more of the following deficiencies, across each potential alternative:

1. Query language standardization - nothing close to SQL standardization
2. Data Access API standardization - nothing close to ODBC, JDBC, OLE-DB, or ADO.NET
3. Wire protocol standardization - nothing close to HTTP
4. Distributed Identity infrastructure - nothing close to the non-repudiatable digital Identity that foaf+ssl accords
5. Use of Identifiers as network based pointers to data sources - nothing close to RDF based Linked Data
6. Negotiable data representation - nothing close to Mime and HTTP based Content Negotiation
7. Scalability especially in the era of Internet & Web scale.

Entity-Attribute-Value with Classes & Relationships (EAV/CR) data models

A common characteristic shared by all post-relational DBMS management systems (from Object Relational to pure Object) is an orientation towards variations of EAV/CR based data models. Unfortunately, all efforts in the EAV/CR realm have typically suffered from at least one of the deficiencies listed above. In addition, the same "one DBMS model fits all" approach that lies at the heart of the RDBMS downgrade also exists in the EAV/CR realm.

What Comes Next?

The RDBMS is not going away (ever), but its era of primacy -- by virtue of its placement at the apex of the data access and data management value pyramid -- is over! I make this bold claim for the following reasons:

1. The Internet aided "Global Village" has brought "Open World" vs "Closed World" assumption issues to the fore e.g., the current global economic crisis remains centered on the inability to connect dots across "Open World" and "Closed World" data frontiers
2. Entity-Attribute-Value with Classes & Relationships (EAV/CR) based DBMS models are more effective when dealing with disparate data associated with disparate schemas, across disparate DBMS engines, host operating systems, and networks.

Based on the above, it is crystal clear that a different kind of DBMS -- one with higher AVF relative to the RDBMS -- needs to sit atop today's data access and data management value pyramid. The characteristics of this DBMS must include the following:

1. Every item of data (Datum/Entity/Object/Resource) has Identity
2. Identity is achieved via Identifiers that aren't locked at the DBMS, OS, Network, or Application levels
3. Object Identifiers and Object values are independent (extricably linked by association)
4. Object values should be de-referencable via Object Identifier
5. Representation of de-referenced value graph (entity, attributes, and values mesh) must be negotiable (i.e. content negotiation)
6. Structured query language must provide mechanism for Creation, Deletion, Updates, and Querying of data objects
7. Performance & Scalability across "Closed World" (enterprise) and "Open World" (Internet & Web) realms.

Quick recap, I am not saying that RDBMS engine technology is dead or obsolete. I am simply stating that the era of RDBMS primacy within the data access and data management value pyramid is over.

The problem domain (conceptual model views over heterogeneous data sources) at the apex of the aforementioned pyramid has simply evolved beyond the natural capabilities of the RDBMS which is rooted in "Closed World" assumptions re., data definition, access, and management. The need to maintain domain based conceptual interaction with data is now palpable at every echelon within our "Global Village" - Internet, Web, Enterprise, Government etc.

It is my personal view that an EAV/CR model based DBMS, with support for the seven items enumerated above, can trigger the long anticipated RDBMS downgrade. Such a DBMS would be inherently multi-model because you would need to the best of RDBMS and EAV/CR model engines in a single product, with in-built support for HTTP and other Internet protocols in order to effectively address data representation and serialization issues.

EAV/CR Oriented Data Access & Management Technology

Examples of contemporary EAV/CR frameworks that provide concrete conceptual layers for data access and data management currently include:

• Resource Description Framework (RDF) - an EAV/CR based framework
• RDF Linked Data - EAV/CR based framework that mandates de-referencable HTTP based Identifiers
• ADO.NET Entity Frameworks - Microsoft .NET based EAV/CR framework
• Core Data Services - Mac OS X based EAV/CR framework that evolved from NeXT's Enterprise Object Frameworks (EOF).

The frameworks above provide the basis for a revised AVF pyramid, as depicted below, that reflects today's data access and management realities i.e., an Internet & Web driven global village comprised of interlinked distributed data objects, compatible with "Open World" assumptions.

Related

• The Semantic Way - Alan Cho's Summary of PwC 2009 tech forecast report on the Semantic Web
• Is the RDBMS Doomed - ReadWriteWeb Article
• Anti-RDBMS: a list of Distributed Key-Value Stores - by Richard Jones (CTO Last.FM)
• How & Why Glue is Using Amazon SimpleDB
• Object Database Manifesto (Identity excerpt)
• Database Models Overview
• Ted Nelson Explaining Irregularity and Idiosyncrasy of Data Structures - ZigZag Demo