W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rax@w3.org > September 2016

RE: A kind of farewell

From: Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 05:54:24 +0000
To: Bernát Kalló <bernat.kallo@z-bible.org>, Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
CC: "public-rax@w3.org" <public-rax@w3.org>
Message-ID: <A71D9E70FCEE5E40A5EAA598864E6057F186443E@mailprd.gva.ebu.ch>
Yes, this is what I had understood as precised in parenthesis.

This is also for that reason that I believe we must careful. The group is about RDF and XML. I understand your concerns with both but maybe this group activity is more about develop solutions than explaining why it shouldn't be used?

I do use a look XSLT with excellent results. In my applications, I do use rdf, xml, java beans and JSON.

If the question is about the conversion to JSON, then I have nothing to do, the triple store API propose a native export of query results to JSON.

Jean-Pierre

________________________________
From: Bernát Kalló [bernat.kallo@z-bible.org]
Sent: 21 September 2016 12:59
To: Evain, Jean-Pierre; Felix Sasaki
Cc: public-rax@w3.org
Subject: Re: A kind of farewell

Felix,
Thanks! :)

Jean-Pierre,
Yes, to be precise, we dropped both RDF and XML as a format for knowledge representation, and it has nothing to do with RDF/XML the format. (we kept XML in other areas however, such as document markup).
It's great that you have no problems with RDF conversions, and I'm interested what tools you use.


Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch<mailto:evain@ebu.ch>> ezt írta (időpont: 2016. szept. 21., Sze, 10:23):
Dear Bernat, Felix,

of course gathering views and experience is good. I have completely different experience and I very happily use RDF triples, query via sparql and use results exported in JSON.

Also not clear if it was RDF that was dropped (I think that's what is meant) orRDF-XML as a representation format. This in itself makes me think about the whole context behind the comments.

We all come with a different history and we need to reflect experience in such a way that newcomers can make their own mind before being redirected based on specific developer experience.

Jean-Pierre
________________________________
From: Felix Sasaki [fsasaki@w3.org<mailto:fsasaki@w3.org>]
Sent: 21 September 2016 09:56
To: Bernát Kalló
Cc: public-rax@w3.org<mailto:public-rax@w3.org>
Subject: Re: A kind of farewell

Dear Bernat,

it is  a pity to loose your contributions to this group. But even the below summary is very valuable and I think we should take that up in our wiki page. I share your view on developers and RDF, and agree with what write on json-ld.

Thanks again,

Felix

Am 20.09.2016 um 18:01 schrieb Bernát Kalló <bernat.kallo@z-bible.org<mailto:bernat.kallo@z-bible.org><mailto:bernat.kallo@z-bible.org<mailto:bernat.kallo@z-bible.org>>>:

Hello all,

Unfortunately, it seems that I will not be able to contribute to the group, at least in the following 6 to 12 months.

About two months ago we decided to stop using RDF+XML at z-Bible, and use YAML instead for knowledge representation. (As a small startup, it's easy for us to make such abrupt changes.)

Here are my reasons why we dropped RDF+XML. (We talked with Christian that these could be included in the knowledge base of the group, and/or incorporated in the publication.)

- RDF was invented around 1996, and still hasn't gained too much popularity... I was wondering why. Now I think the main reason is the over-simplified data model (everything is triples). It sounds extremely elegant, but it turns out that even the simplest things become overly complicated because of this. For example, if I want to store an ordered list of objects (e.g. paragraphs of a text) and retreive them in order with SPARQL, I have to do crazy hacks. It was Manu Sporny's blog post<http://manu.sporny.org/2014/json-ld-origins-2/> that pointed me to this conclusion.
- We use JavaScript, while I see most of you are using Java. In the Java world, it is quite common to use XML for configuration. In the JavaScript world, JSON is the de facto standard because it directly translates to plain old JavaScript data structures. (We chose YAML as a human-friendly syntax for JSON, but basically we use the JSON data model.)
- While we were using XML, we had to write importer code for each of our XML-based file types (I was planning to solve this with an XML>RDF conversion...) Now with YAML, we just import the data and use it, no extra conversion code is needed. Though both technologies have advantages, for us as a startup, the ability to make fast changes is the most important, so YAML works better for us.
- And there is no decent SPARQL implementation for JavaScript. The only one is quite buggy, and does not give good syntax error messages. So it seemed that our editor colleagues will not be able to cope with it. It was also way too slow for our purposes.

For the future, I have some thoughts:

JSON-LD was created fairly recently and it has already gained a relatively wide popularity (it is the recommended LD format by Google<https://developers.google.com/search/docs/guides/intro-structured-data>, for example.) For its designers, it took several years of hard work, but I think it was worth it, beacuse the world got a more user-friendly format, and it helps the RDF/Semantic Web ecosystem move forward. Similarly, there is space for developing more usable, more user-friendly formats for other parts of the RDF world. And I think you guys now have the opportunity to design something nice. So I wish you the best in this.

We plan to develop a format for knowledge to document (e.g. RDF to XML) conversion. However, now we might end up with one of the (hunderds of) JavaScript template engines out there and not use RDF at all. But if later we happen to come back to a Semantic Web direction, I'll most probably come back to this group.

But I'm thankful to you all, I have got some quite important insights in this group. And it was a pleasure to work with you.

I wish you blessed work and nice results!

Bernát


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway
**************************************************



------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway
**************************************************
Received on Thursday, 22 September 2016 05:57:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 22 September 2016 05:57:18 UTC