Re: Slides for Berlin Data Workshop

Good point Dan, thanks.
That could indeed be part of the argument in the defense of blank nodes.

On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 at 19:22, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:

>
>
> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>