Re: CG Recommendation

Hi Kelvin,

Yes we should discuss this on a call.

I should make myself clear. Actually I was not talking about the exact 
N-TRIPLES or N-QUADS format.
Those were defined for RDF anyway. The very simple one-edge-per-line 
structure is what I like.

Thanks,

Zhe

On 1/6/2014 12:57 PM, Kelvin Lawrence wrote:
> We should have this discussion on a call but I don't see N-Triples as 
> a good fit for arbitrary property graphs. What is more interesting to 
> me is the intersection of the graph world and things like schema.org. 
> That discussion came up at the workshop and also intersects with the 
> JASON-LD conversation.
>
> Cheers
> Kelvin
>
> Kelvin R. Lawrence
> Distinguished Engineer & CTO, Software Standards
> Member of the IBM Academy of Technology (http://www.ibm.com/ibm/academy)
>
>
> -----Alan Wu <alan.wu@oracle.com> wrote: -----
> To: Jans Aasman <ja@franz.com>
> From: Alan Wu <alan.wu@oracle.com>
> Date: 01/06/2014 01:45PM
> Cc: public-propertygraphs@w3.org
> Subject: Re: CG Recommendation
>
> Yes :)
>
> Zhe
>
> On 1/6/2014 11:43 AM, Jans Aasman wrote:
>> or NQUADS
>>
>> On 1/6/2014 9:07 AM, Alan Wu wrote:
>>> 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-----
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> -------------------
>> Jans Aasman
>> CEO Franz Inc
>> Office : 510 452 2000 x 119
>> Cell : +1 925 878 1444
>> Skype: jansaasman
>