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

On 7/23/14 3:21 PM, David Booth wrote:
> 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 

Yes, I agree there is still a lot of demystification work to be done. 
Personally, I encourage those that have traveled these waters over the 
years to put more energy into simpler narratives an good live examples. 
The powerful nature of RDF remains its biggest comprehension and natural 
adoption hurdle :-)

-- 
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