Re: "Microsoft Access" for RDF?

On 2/21/15 9:48 AM, Martynas Jusevičius wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Kingsley  Idehen
> <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
>> On 2/20/15 12:04 PM, Martynas Jusevičius wrote:
>>
>>
>> Not to criticize, but to seek clarity:
>>
>> What does the term "resources" refer to, in your usage context?
>>
>> In a world of Relations (this is what RDF is about, fundamentally) its hard
>> for me to understand what you mean by "grouped by resources". What is the
>> "resource" etc?
> Well, RDF stands for "Resource Description Framework" after all, so
> I'll cite its spec:
> "RDF graphs are sets of subject-predicate-object triples, where the
> elements may be IRIs, blank nodes, or datatyped literals. They are
> used to express descriptions of resources."
>
> More to the point, RDF serializations often group triples by subject
> URI.

The claim "often group triples by subject"  isn't consistent with the 
nature of an RDF Relation [1].

"A _*predicate*_ is a sentence-forming _*relation*_. Each tuple in the 
relation is a finite, ordered sequence of objects. The fact that a 
particular tuple is an element of a predicate is denoted by 
'(*predicate* arg_1 arg_2 .. arg_n)', where the arg_i are the objects so 
related. In the case of binary predicates, the fact can be read as 
`arg_1 is *predicate* arg_2' or `a *predicate* of arg_1 is arg_2'.") " [1] .

RDF's specs are consistent with what's described above, and inconsistent 
with the subject ordering claims you are making.

RDF statements (which represent relations) have sources such as 
documents which are accessible over a network and/or documents managed 
by some RDBMS e.g., Named Graphs in the case of a SPARQL compliant RDBMS .

In RDF you are always working with a set of tuples (s,p,o 3-tuples 
specifically) grouped by predicate .

Also note, I never used the phrase "RDF Graph" in any of the sentences 
above, and deliberately so, because that overloaded phrase is yet 
another source of unnecessary confusion.

Links:

[1] 
http://54.183.42.206:8080/sigma/Browse.jsp?lang=EnglishLanguage&flang=SUO-KIF&kb=SUMO&term=Predicate

Kingsley
>
>>
>>>    Within a resource block, properties are sorted
>>> alphabetically by their rdfs:labels retrieved from respective
>>> vocabularies.
>>
>> How do you handle the integrity of multi-user updates, without killing
>> concurrency, using this method of grouping (which in of itself is unclear
>> due to the use "resources" term) ?
>>
>> How do you minimize the user interaction space i.e., reduce clutter --
>> especially if you have a lot of relations in scope or the possibility that
>> such becomes the reality over time?
>>
> I don't think concurrent updates I related to "resources" or specific
> to our editor. The Linked Data platform (whatever it is) and its HTTP
> logic has to deal with ETags and 409 Conflict etc.
>
> I was wondering if this logic should be part of specifications such as
> the Graph Store Protocol:
> https://twitter.com/pumba_lt/status/545206095783145472
> But I haven't an answer. Maybe it's an oversight on the W3C side?
>
> We scope the description edited either by a) SPARQL query or b) named
> graph content.
>
>> Kingsley
>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Michael Brunnbauer <brunni@netestate.de>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Hello Martynas,
>>>>
>>>> sorry! You mean this one?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://linkeddatahub.com/ldh?mode=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphity.org%2Fgc%23EditMode
>>>>
>>>> Nice! Looks like a template but you still may have the triple object
>>>> ordering
>>>> problem. Do you? If yes, how did you address it?
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Michael Brunnbauer
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 04:23:14PM +0100, Martynas Jusevi??ius wrote:
>>>>> I find it funny that people on this list and semweb lists in general
>>>>> like discussing abstractions, ideas, desires, prejudices etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> However when a concrete example is shown, which solves the issue
>>>>> discussed or at least comes close to that, it receives no response.
>>>>>
>>>>> So please continue discussing the ideal RDF environment and its
>>>>> potential problems while we continue improving our editor for users
>>>>> who manage RDF already now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Have a nice weekend everyone!
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Paul Houle <ontology2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> So some thoughts here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OWL,  so far as inference is concerned,  is a failure and it is time to
>>>>>> move
>>>>>> on.  It is like RDF/XML.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As a way of documenting types and properties it is tolerable.  If I
>>>>>> write
>>>>>> down something in production rules I can generally explain to an
>>>>>> "average
>>>>>> joe" what they mean.  If I try to use OWL it is easy for a few things,
>>>>>> hard
>>>>>> for a few things,  then there are a few things Kendall Clark can do,
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> then there is a lot you just can't do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On paper OWL has good scaling properties but in practice production
>>>>>> rules
>>>>>> win because you can infer the things you care about and not have to
>>>>>> generate
>>>>>> the large number of trivial or otherwise uninteresting conclusions you
>>>>>> get
>>>>>> from OWL.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As a data integration language OWL points in an interesting direction
>>>>>> but it
>>>>>> is insufficient in a number of ways.  For instance,  it can't convert
>>>>>> data
>>>>>> types (canonicalize <mailto:joe@example.com> and "joe@example.com"),
>>>>>> deal
>>>>>> with trash dates (have you ever seen an enterprise system that didn't
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> trash dates?) or convert units.  It also can't reject facts that don't
>>>>>> matter and so far as both time&space and accuracy you do much easier if
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> can cook things down to the smallest correct database.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The other one is that as Kingsley points out,  the ordered collections
>>>>>> do
>>>>>> need some real work to square the circle between the abstract graph
>>>>>> representation and things that are actually practical.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am building an app right now where I call an API and get back chunks
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> JSON which I cache,  and the primary scenario is that I look them up by
>>>>>> primary key and get back something with a 1:1 correspondence to what I
>>>>>> got.
>>>>>> Being able to do other kind of queries and such is sugar on top,  but
>>>>>> being
>>>>>> able to reconstruct an original record,  ordered collections and all,
>>>>>> is an
>>>>>> absolute requirement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So far my infovore framework based on Hadoop has avoided collections,
>>>>>> containers and all that because these are not used in DBpedia and
>>>>>> Freebase,
>>>>>> at least not in the A-Box.  The simple representation that each triple
>>>>>> is a
>>>>>> record does not work so well in this case because if I just turn blank
>>>>>> nodes
>>>>>> into UUIDs and spray them across the cluster,  the act of
>>>>>> reconstituting a
>>>>>> container would require an unbounded number of passes,  which is no fun
>>>>>> at
>>>>>> all with Hadoop.  (At first I though the # of passes was the same as
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> length of the largest collection but now that I think about it I think
>>>>>> I can
>>>>>> do better than that)  I don't feel so bad about most recursive
>>>>>> structures
>>>>>> because I don't think they will get that deep but I think LISP-Lists
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> evil at least when it comes to external memory and modern memory
>>>>>> hierarchies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> ++  Michael Brunnbauer
>>>> ++  netEstate GmbH
>>>> ++  Geisenhausener Straße 11a
>>>> ++  81379 München
>>>> ++  Tel +49 89 32 19 77 80
>>>> ++  Fax +49 89 32 19 77 89
>>>> ++  E-Mail brunni@netestate.de
>>>> ++  http://www.netestate.de/
>>>> ++
>>>> ++  Sitz: München, HRB Nr.142452 (Handelsregister B München)
>>>> ++  USt-IdNr. DE221033342
>>>> ++  Geschäftsführer: Michael Brunnbauer, Franz Brunnbauer
>>>> ++  Prokurist: Dipl. Kfm. (Univ.) Markus Hendel
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>>
>> Kingsley Idehen
>> Founder & CEO
>> OpenLink Software
>> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
>> Personal Weblog 1: http://kidehen.blogspot.com
>> Personal Weblog 2: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>> Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
>> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
>> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>> Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this
>>
>>
>


-- 
Regards,

Kingsley Idehen 
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog 1: http://kidehen.blogspot.com
Personal Weblog 2: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this