Re: Converting RDF to JSON-LD : shared lists between graphs

Hi Kingsley,

On 07/23/2014 10:13 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 7/23/14 6:46 AM, Dan Brickley wrote:
>>> How so?  It seems to me that there is an inherent tension between
>>> being nice
>>> >to RDF consumers (by using URIs for things that other might want to
>>> refer
>>> >to, as AWWW recommends) and author convenience, which leads to bnode
>>> use.
>> Yes, that's a real tension, although bnodes are just one aspect. My
>> point was to question the "clearly" in  "the use of blank nodes
>> clearly violates the web architectural good practice that anything of
>> importance should be given a URI". Using bnodes is consistent with the
>> things the bnodes represent having URIs, so nothing is violated. The
>> reason btw we renamed them "bnodes" instead of the earlier (1997-2000
>> e.g.http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-identity-anon-resources)
>>
>> phrase "anonymous nodes" was this point: the things are not anonymous
>> / nameless. Only particular descriptions of them.
>>
>
> +1
>
> Using pronouns (from natural language) to explain the nature of blank
> nodes helps a lot.

Maybe, but pronouns are used *very* differently than blank nodes, so it 
really isn't an accurate comparison.  Normally when a pronoun is used, 
the corresponding noun is *also* used, so the reader can easily 
determine the intended noun.  ("When *Jack* got to the bank, *he* 
stopped.")  But that is not usually the case with blank nodes.  Usually 
if a blank node is used in an RDF document, no equivalent URI is given 
for that node.  But still, I can see how the analogy could help sometimes.

>
> Over the years there's been a tendency to tag vital aspects of RDF as
> bad, for a variety of reasons that always boil down to assuming that
> users (end-users and developers) can't figure this stuff out.

I think we have quite a lot of experience indicating that that is the 
case.  Even though the basic idea of triples representing simple 
assertions is easy -- and David Wood has a really nice Dr Seuss-inspired 
introduction
http://www.slideshare.net/3roundstones/rdf-explained-by-suess-and-me
-- RDF also has subtleties that cause complexity and grief in practice 
and IMO inhibit adoption.  Blank nodes are prime culprits here.  And my 
main argument in this paper
http://dbooth.org/2013/well-behaved-rdf/Booth-well-behaved-rdf.pdf
is that if we constrain how blank nodes are used, by eliminating 
explicit blank nodes while retaining implicit blank nodes, we can 
simplify RDF usage while retaining the main benefits of blank nodes -- 
getting the best of both.

> In my
> experience, a little flexibility on the narrative and anecdotes front
> can leads to clarity, appreciation, and adoption.

Yes, that definitely helps too.  And I appreciate all the work you have 
done over the years to ease that path.  But I still think RDF is harder 
than it should be, because of these complexities, and we would gain more 
adoption if we made it simpler.

David

>
> Here are two important aspects of RDF that typically end up being
> labeled as problematic:
>
> [1] blank nodes -- pronouns
> [2] statement reification -- statements are things too!
>
> The items above enable important bridging across:
>
> 1. Open Data -- basic structured data
> 2. Linked Open Data -- structured data constructed using Linked (Open)
> Data principles
> 3. Semantically enhanced Linked Open Data -- structured data constructed
> using RDFS, OWL, etc., in conjunction with Linked Open Data principles.
>
>
> In most cases, rather than reification, RDF user agents will leverage
> blank nodes as objects of relations that associate embedded structured
> data with their container documents.
>
> Example:
>
> [1]
> http://linkeddata.uriburner.com/about/id/entity/http/thenextweb.com/apple/2014/07/23/apple-release-information-ios-response-claims-backdoor-data-collection/
> -- Statements are reified en route to creating an RDF based Linked Data
> document that's close to self-explanatory re. follow-your-nose pattern
>
> [2] http://bit.ly/rdf-statement-reficiation-fyn  -- alternative view for
> deeper follow-your-nose exploration
>
> [3] https://twitter.com/thalhamm/status/471994633573380096 -- tweet
> about blank node use that's also a segue to a usecase demo.
>

Received on Wednesday, 23 July 2014 19:22:19 UTC