Re: CG Recommendation

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-----
>