asami VS naga

Unlike some other commenters, I agree that graph models are usually a better fit for most data than relational models. There's been some interesting work in recent years developing this idea: in the Clojure world there's Datomic, XTDB, and a host of competitors, all of which build on work from Semantic Web/SPARQL/triplestores and logic programming. Some are even intended to be used as primary datastores: they support some amount of schema and constraints, have well-defined consistency and ACID guarantees, etc. This makes them unlike graph databases like Neo4J and others, which fill an architectural role more like Elasticsearch as a read-optimization tool. Here's an interesting talk making a case for triple-based databases.

Despite the documentation that exists, I've heard many people who have been confused about how to query Datomic, Datascript, Asami, or other graph databases. So I've made an attempt at explaining it https://github.com/threatgrid/asami/wiki/Introduction

The first Graph implementation for Asami was a simple in-memory data structure, described in my ClojureD talk. The code for this appears in asami.index. This file started much smaller (as referenced above), but has since expanded with the needs extended functionality, such as transactions, and transitive closure operations.

As for rules, I suppose I neglected talking about that in this talk, as I was only considering it in the context of, "This is where Asami came from." The rules that integrate with Asami are in a project called Naga. I gave a talk on Naga at Clojure/conj back in 2016.

I was pleased with how well this worked and showed my then-boss, Craig while we waiting in an airport together. He was very interested in it and asked me if I would be prepared to develop it for Cisco. I agreed, so long as I could keep it open source, which Craig was pleased to do. Thus, Naga was born.