Hey, another co-founder of CORE. Great question about triples vs. fact statements! Your house example actually highlights why we went with a reified graph:
With fact statements, you'd need to decide upfront: is this one "about my house" memory or separate facts? Our approach lets you do both:
Representation flexibility: For your house example, we can model (house, needs repair, attic bath) AND connect it to (attic bathroom, has fixture, bath). The LLM extraction helps maintain consistency, but the graph structure allows both high-level and detailed representations simultaneously.
Updating and deduplication:
- We identify potential duplicates/updates by matching subject-predicate patterns
- When new information contradicts old (e.g., repair completed), we don't delete - we mark the old statement invalid at timestamp X and create a new valid statement
- This maintains a complete history while still showing the current state
- The structured format makes conflicts explicit rather than buried in text
The schema isn't rigid - we have predefined types (Person, Place, etc.), but relationships form dynamically. This gives structure where helpful, but flexibility where needed.
In practice, we've found this approach more deterministic for tracking knowledge evolution while still preserving the context and nuance of natural language through provenance links.