Re: CG Recommendation

Hi Folks,

Happy New Year!

I think XML based serialization is a good idea. A problem, though, is 
when data size
gets really big, the parsing and serialization can take quite a bit of 
time. We may
also want to think about a flat file structure. Something along the line 
of N-TRIPLES for RDF.

Cheers,

Zhe

On 1/3/2014 8:45 AM, Kelvin Lawrence wrote:
>
> There are lots of existing syntaxes/serialization a. I use GraphML a 
> lot. I worry we are trying to move too fast here. I was hoping for a 
> lot more discussion before trying to close on "deliverables". Let's 
> discuss on our next call.
>
> Happy new year to all.
>
>
> Cheers, Kelvin
> DE & CTO Software Standards
> IBM Software Group
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Jan 3, 2014, at 10:12 AM, "Patrick Durusau" <patrick@durusau.net> 
> wrote:
>
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Ashok,
> >
> > Since we are talking about property graphs, should we consider an
> > existing graph syntax?
> >
> > http://www.graphviz.org/doc/info/lang.html
> >
> > DOT has the following advantages:
> >
> > 1) Widely known already
> > 2) Supported by existing tooling
> > 3) Supports statements about edges and nodes
> > 4) Supports identifiers on nodes and the graph (for addressing)
> >
> > I am sure there are others that I am overlooking.
> >
> > Thinking if we don't try to re-invent the wheel, we can move more
> > quickly towards a finished deliverable.
> >
> > Hope everyone is early into a great new year!
> >
> > Patrick
> >
> >
> > On 01/03/2014 10:59 AM, Ashok Malhotra wrote:
> > > Hi Andy: One other thought.  Should we consider a variant/extension
> > > of one of the RDF syntaxes for expressing the data model?  This may
> > > also tie into your thought of mapping RDF to PGs. Can someone float
> > > a proposal? All the best, Ashok
> > >
> > > On 1/3/2014 6:46 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> > >> On 02/01/14 22:21, Ashok Malhotra wrote:
> > >>> I took the liberty of creating a Wiki page to discuss what the
> > >>> CG should recommend:
> > >>> http://www.w3.org/community/propertygraphs/wiki/Recommendation
> > >>>
> > >>> Please comment.  Along with boilerplate this needs a Out of
> > >>> Scope Bullet.
> > >>>
> > >>> Talk to you Tuesday.
> > >>
> > >> 1/ Focus
> > >>
> > >> In order to start of work on standardised property graphs at W3C,
> > >> I would suggest aiming to get one thing done promptly.
> > >>
> > >> The more that gets added to a WG's charter, the longer it is to
> > >> first finished document for any piece.  If you want to propose a
> > >> 2 year WG that might actually finish in 2 years then less is
> > >> better (most WGs overrun; WGs nearly always address "optional"
> > >> items so they are not extras really).
> > >>
> > >> The most important items are the data model and syntax for
> > >> writing the data model so it can be exchanged on the web.
> > >>
> > >> An important point is the experience of RDF with XML - using an
> > >> existing data structure language lead to large files and
> > >> cumbersome expression. Acceptable in the small, not good at
> > >> scale.  A native property graph syntax should be included (as
> > >> well as a JSON one if wanted but note JSON has very few datatypes
> > >> types which makes life interesting in the detail).
> > >>
> > >> 2/ Linking
> > >>
> > >> There nothing about linking data and linking to places within
> > >> graphs. Making data relate to other data is both a web issue but
> > >> also an issue inside an organisation of even moderate size.
> > >>
> > >> 3/ Follow-ons
> > >>
> > >> Other, focused, WG can be chartered as it becomes clear what a
> > >> core PG-data WG will achieve, and the community reaction to the
> > >> work. Hopefully, that reaction includes member submissions to
> > >> feed into those WGs.  Prototyping is better done outside a formal
> > >> WG process.
> > >>
> > >> So I would remove the REST API from the charter in favor of doing
> > >> the data model sooner.  A REST API is just one method of access;
> > >> it does not fit all the use cases.  Rexster is on top of gremlin,
> > >> albeit an extension, and if you are mentioning query language(s),
> > >> the access language area is now quite large and mixed with API.
> > >> The design space isn't clear cut.
> > >>
> > >> 4/ Target
> > >>
> > >> On the web, we have exchange of property graphs by linking to
> > >> web resources and representations and linking to points within
> > >> graphs.
> > >>
> > >> Andy
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> > - --
> > Patrick Durusau
> > patrick@durusau.net
> > Technical Advisory Board, OASIS (TAB)
> > Co-Chair, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS)
> > Editor, OpenDocument Format TC, Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
> > Former Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
> > Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
> > Co-Editor, ISO 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
> >
> > Another Word For It (blog): http://tm.durusau.net
> > Homepage: http://www.durusau.net
> > Twitter: patrickDurusau
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
> >
> > iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSxuFQAAoJEAudyeI2QFGoNYIP/ipgTfGGlLujxnmB6Vqd4Qnj
> > KlV5zOunPGvy7it9bleng4oXWf4oWSMf/b8kykNM2KdHWz2yExuKl0FvuBzo6ks5
> > e9NiUz+xIa7o+aLLkkflOnT+y9aw6QY4Zl76UDbZHbi+CBDxcMmSYSrh5uSOAoAw
> > kEHRF1alMThBT2wotrM5LziK7wruEegGZ4ELg3kuY+ezBu5EmCt6DunHELH/ooaW
> > Y/dQtlQdBWwFlCU6cC6GD6icc9xwPIDUI8F1FRUkMCK9CJqaV9uF5Ndq5w9uCV1X
> > TSwsJXUwq2hWqcDYGwLibCLPpiQm6Sk1bbFA8BfIELc3wxEH3qtDo3hz29QlHZjo
> > A6tvplhyei8LvVSzpYr+W34pLuw4rqJJrvfhT27fY27/MC4KCwsVQkHn6cDY9b6+
> > WFHuo9XHgYatOlgtGdK8T0n7O3wC+0GBcD7hoIR9MuwpAfjgyXfsOPBZrcgg1P3V
> > Ezhk0SlpZXLvJ5sieH6p72HuxvCqt0gvdA7Il3f2WCb3HMhfakMWkP1jEj5VkD32
> > srOpLrVEPpfAhav90l3EWJ47JjdAqudnxGXC0xI9sC2Lrzp0uIWpgFiAl8MvV8Oq
> > 0mdUcOaTLll+EjSW7OTHcsbDHHY4v4rus4WaM+nzR3enL3gsSHcARU8JQhwS+EDS
> > HVfnZcrHdnI6UYECRIdk
> > =pAUH
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
>