Re: Slides for Berlin Data Workshop

On Sun, 24 Feb 2019, 15:58 Pierre-Antoine Champin, <
pierre-antoine.champin@univ-lyon1.fr> wrote:

> Dear Gregg,
>
> this is very nice.
>
> Slide 5, you might want to mark your JSON-LD example as "not working yet'
> (AFAIK, the @univar type is not part of the standard, right?)
>
> Also, a lot of people are allergic to blank nodes (and some of them even
> have quite valid arguments...). Proposing to put *more* blank nodes as soon
> as slide 2 might antagonize those people, who may become less receptive to
> the remaining of the presentation.
>

By far the largest adoption of JSON-LD, in terms of number of sites,
documents, triples... is from publishers of Schema.org data in JSON-LD.
Those structured data patterns make extensive casual use of blank nodes
(both in the examples published at schema.org, and in the more specific
application-specific examples we have published in Google documentation).
This was not an accidental choice but a consideration towards keeping
adoption burdens low on publishers to jump-start an ecosystem. Many Web
publishers simply lack the expertise and infrastructure to reconcile all of
their entity-mentions with well-known URIs...

Dan


Maybe it would be a good idea to forestall this, with a slide between 1 and
> 2, or may be just an oral warnin, in the line of:
>
> " I know that blank nodes can be painful to cope with, but there are
> solutions: skolemization, correctly defining their scope, etc... Under this
> premise, I don't consider blank nodes to be taboo."
>
> best
>
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2019 at 23:51, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
> wrote:
>
>> The format for the Berlin Data Workshop [1] remains unclear, but I’ve
>> prepared just a couple of slides to describe one way in which Anonymous
>> Named Graphs in JSON-LD could support the property graph use case.
>>
>> > https://json-ld.org/presentations/JSON-LD-Support-for-Property-Graphs/
>> <https://json-ld.org/presentations/JSON-LD-Support-for-Property-Graphs/>
>>
>>
>> There’s a short overview of new things in JSON-LD 1.1, and as a bonus, a
>> sketch of how Notation3 reasoning might look in JSON-LD. (Hint, we really
>> only need to invent a way to describe universal variables at the syntax
>> level; reasoning should be universal based on obvious projections from
>> Notation 3. The required extensions to RDF Datasets and better description
>> of reasoning semantics are work to be done elsewhere).
>>
>> Gregg Kellogg
>> gregg@greggkellogg.net
>>
>>
>> [1] https://www.w3.org/Data/events/data-ws-2019/schedule.html
>>
>>
>>