W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-declarative-apps@w3.org > February 2019

Re: Web semantics, aka denotational semantics for CRUD operations on RDF datasets

From: Sebastian Samaruga <ssamarug@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 15:47:21 -0300
Message-ID: <CAOLUXBtZuqpc2aei_mDCDe332aiiWi3H6fFQi7aRw0bHSNc1Sw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@atomgraph.com>
Cc: Linked Data Platform Working Group <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>, hypermedia-web@googlegroups.com, public-declarative-apps@w3.org, W3C Semantic Web IG <semantic-web@w3.org>, public-lod <public-lod@w3.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Hi, I'll be trying to understand your formal semantics and LDP
specification. I'm currently a Semantic Web "hobbyist" lacking of a formal
degree. But that doesn't prevents me at all from trying to play around with
graph, models, statements and reasoning. All this from my "amateur" point
of view (which took me in the past to post rather incoherent subjects, I'm
afraid...).

You currently mentioned "hypermedia". For what I've saw, there where a
couple of ISO standards (HyTime, ISO 13250 / 15926) which attempted to face
the problem of hypermedia linking, representation, annotation and
addressing from different points of view and techniques.

Again, from my naive point of view, I think the next Web will be semantic
and Peer to Peer, DIDs: Distributed IDs enabled. But, most importantly,
there will be a need for a new kind of "browser" for this kind of Web.
Otherwise we'll ending up building old school web applications which
leverages SW only as another kind of persistence layer.

This is roughly a first enumeration of (arbitrary) features of such a
"meta-browser". I know I'm a thousand miles of distance of the level of
you, seasoned SW developers. I apologize if I'm posting again some nonsense
stuff...


   -

   P2P Browser: Addressing, linking and annotation / embedding. Items:
   subjects occurrences in roles in contexts: Documents / resources semantic
   linking. Workflow session abstraction of resources in roles in learned /
   inferred domains (applications). Content types, addressing, representation
   (i.e.: mail / chat conversation URI addressed / linked as project /
   document cause role, person in picture occurrence in marriage event role,
   etc.). P2P Browser rendering declarative state flows / contexts /
   interactions embeddings addressable / embedded resources in roles in
   contexts.



   -

   Search, find and browse semantically. Copy and paste any meaningfully
   labeled addressed resource into any other context resource. Discover
   intelligent insights from linked knowledge bases rendered together with the
   resources that originated them while navigating with an enhanced browser
   which allows for conceptual based relations and dimensional reasoning
   traversal.



   -

   Connect any addressable content type representation into document
   (semantic resource) embeddings playing roles: purchase, invoice. Resource
   annotations. Addressing and type / representation handlers as browser
   plugins. Custom protocol adapters (example: mail, chat conversations
   playing role in interactions; picture: scanned receipt). Meta browser
   involving session workflows. Annotations (subject / occurrence: picture /
   event; paragraph mentions interview: semantically augmented link to audio /
   video of subject).



   -

   Basic inference (resource augmentation: activation, aggregation,
   alignment models).
   -

   Class (type) / ID (instance) inference.
   -

   Attributes / Links inference.
   -

   Context / Role inference.
   -

   Message driven reactive P2P architecture. Synchronization. Event
   sourcing (distributed consistency).



   -

   Implementation example: Health Care domain. Functionalities such as
   kinds of ERP, CRM, SCM (B2B / B2C) for health: HMS (Health Management
   System) The Browser provided will act as an overlay (of integrated
   resources). Example linked resources (records): symptoms, measures,
   interviews (previous QA forms), analysis / trials, results, diagnoses.
   Clinical history. Integration: peer / node, cloud. Metamodels. BI / Big
   Data. Rules. Planner. Business Process Management. Resources allocation /
   logistics (optimize resources allocation). Workflows (ontology learnt).


For a long time I'm planning to develop such an endeavor. Lack of time and
knowledge forced me to wait. But now I also be glad from learning
collaborating into other's projects. Please let me know.

Best regards,
Sebastián.


On Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 10:59 AM Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@atomgraph..com
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> cross-posting as I think this touches both Semantic Web and Linked
> Data and hypermedia.
>
> I finally wrote down something that was bothering me for a while,
> namely formal semantics of web interactions:
> https://gist.github.com/namedgraph/64ef07b0a3a66092cfdcbf65eefbf00f
>
> The document defines CRUD semantics for 3 different RDF quad-based
> protocols: Linked Data, Graph Store [1] and Quad Store [2]. Linked
> Data and Graph Store are shown to be orthogonal projections of an RDF
> dataset.
>
> The semantics show that URIs built into the RDF data model allow a
> formal specification of a uniform, generic web API. I believe it could
> be demonstrated that a data model without built-in URIs and a generic
> merge operation cannot be used to specify such a uniform API.
>
> These semantics are what Linked Data Templates [3] boil down to, minus
> SPARQL. The LDT spec is being updated to better reflect quad-based
> semantics.
> It is also what I think Linked Data Platform should have specified,
> instead of some loose prose definitions. Where LDP falls in this
> classification is unclear to me -- it is a form of Graph Store, but
> with overloaded and incompatible with GSP semantics.
>
> Note that (POST to) containers does not require special treatment:
> membership can be specified as part of the quads payload, and the
> resolution of member URIs is a process separate/orthogonal to CRUD.
>
> We discussed this with TimBL and came to a disagreement: what he calls
> Linked Data I call Graph Store. However, under the definition of
> Linked Data as "[retrieval of] a description of the resource that is
> identified by the URI" [4], returning graph contents as a resource
> description does not hold in the general case, as graphs are unlikely
> to contain triples about themselves.
> I think that shows there is conflation between terms "resource
> description" and "graph", which I strongly believe are orthogonal
> concepts.
>
> Feedback is very welcome.
>
> [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-http-rdf-update/
> [2]
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sparql-dev/2014AprJun/0008.html
> [3] https://atomgraph.github.io/Linked-Data-Templates/
> [4] http://linkeddatabook.com/editions/1.0/#htoc11
>
> Martynas
> atomgraph.com
>
>
On Feb 21, 2019 10:59 AM, "Martynas Jusevičius" <martynas@atomgraph.com>
wrote:

Hi all,

cross-posting as I think this touches both Semantic Web and Linked
Data and hypermedia.

I finally wrote down something that was bothering me for a while,
namely formal semantics of web interactions:
https://gist.github.com/namedgraph/64ef07b0a3a66092cfdcbf65eefbf00f

The document defines CRUD semantics for 3 different RDF quad-based
protocols: Linked Data, Graph Store [1] and Quad Store [2]. Linked
Data and Graph Store are shown to be orthogonal projections of an RDF
dataset.

The semantics show that URIs built into the RDF data model allow a
formal specification of a uniform, generic web API. I believe it could
be demonstrated that a data model without built-in URIs and a generic
merge operation cannot be used to specify such a uniform API.

These semantics are what Linked Data Templates [3] boil down to, minus
SPARQL. The LDT spec is being updated to better reflect quad-based
semantics.
It is also what I think Linked Data Platform should have specified,
instead of some loose prose definitions. Where LDP falls in this
classification is unclear to me -- it is a form of Graph Store, but
with overloaded and incompatible with GSP semantics.

Note that (POST to) containers does not require special treatment:
membership can be specified as part of the quads payload, and the
resolution of member URIs is a process separate/orthogonal to CRUD.

We discussed this with TimBL and came to a disagreement: what he calls
Linked Data I call Graph Store. However, under the definition of
Linked Data as "[retrieval of] a description of the resource that is
identified by the URI" [4], returning graph contents as a resource
description does not hold in the general case, as graphs are unlikely
to contain triples about themselves.
I think that shows there is conflation between terms "resource
description" and "graph", which I strongly believe are orthogonal
concepts.

Feedback is very welcome.

[1] https://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-http-rdf-update/
[2]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sparql-dev/2014AprJun/0008.html
[3] https://atomgraph.github.io/Linked-Data-Templates/
[4] http://linkeddatabook.com/editions/1.0/#htoc11

Martynas
atomgraph.com
Received on Thursday, 21 February 2019 18:49:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 21 February 2019 18:49:21 UTC