Re: A few thoughts on RDF-star, Reification, and Labeled Property Graphs

Hi Ora,

Same as Phil here. I have been checking the mailing list from time to time to see the progress on RDF-star.

RDF-star caught my attention as it seemed that the working group aimed at closing the gap with LPG, plus adding the power of formal semantics to the graph. I must say I’m no expert on RDF, but I have always seen reification and blank nodes as too complex and difficult when building knowledge graphs. Most of the use cases we have identified come down to qualifying relationships or representing data provenance.

In my opinion, RDF-star should still target LPG, benefiting a broader community.

Just wanted to add my two cents.

Many thanks,
Nacho.


From: Lassila, Ora <ora@amazon.com>
Date: Wednesday, 17 April 2024 at 14:48
To: Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>
Cc: public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org <public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org>
Subject: Re: A few thoughts on RDF-star, Reification, and Labeled Property Graphs
AVISO/WARNING: Este correo electrónico se originó desde fuera de la organización. No haga clic en enlaces ni abra archivos adjuntos a menos que reconozca al remitente y sepa que el contenido es seguro / This email has been originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Phil,

Indeed.

I have a really hard time explaining this to people, one of the reasons for my (and my team’s) reluctance to accept the current proposal. Apart from questions of expressivity (presented as a benefit of the current proposal) and constraints the opposing “only one triple per reifier” -approach introduces (erroneously presented as “something RDF has not done before”), our ability to explain RDF to folks who are less acquainted with it is paramount. We now have a quarter century fighting against the “but RDF is so complicated” -crowd, and I absolutely would not want to make this task any harder.

I am yet to see a use case that would convince me that we should implement the current proposal. On the other hand, achieving closer alignment with Labeled Property Graphs benefits the broader graph community, and would in part assure that RDF stays relevant.

Ora

--
Dr. Ora Lassila
Principal Technologist, Amazon Neptune



From: Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>
Date: Wednesday, April 17, 2024 at 5:22 AM
To: "public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org" <public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] A few thoughts on RDF-star, Reification, and Labeled Property Graphs
Resent-From: <public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org>
Resent-Date: Wednesday, April 17, 2024 at 5:22 AM


CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.


Hello all. I just lurk on this list, hoping to learn enough to use RDF-start/RDF1.2 when it is published and this is something I have been wondering about:
On 16/04/2024 17:07, Thompson, Bryan wrote:
But this same reifier, multiple triples design would allow multiple link types.  It is in fact closer to named graphs, which are also just bundles of triples.

I'm aware of the long "we don't need RDF-star, just use named gaphs /  rdf:Statement from RDF1.1" discussions and don't mean to revisit that, but I have wondered since it first came up, what is the difference between using same reifier for multiple triples of different types (as it was first introduced) and a named graph?

Phil
--

Phil Barker<http://people.pjjk.net/phil>, http://people.pjjk.net/phil (he/him).
Cetis LLP<https://www.cetis.org.uk>: a cooperative consultancy for innovation in education technology.
PJJK Limited<https://www.pjjk.co.uk>: technology to enhance learning; information systems for education.

CETIS is a co-operative limited liability partnership, registered in England number OC399090
PJJK Limited is registered in Scotland as a private limited company, number SC569282.

________________________________

Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso exclusivo de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la lectura, utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin autorización puede estar prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción.

The information contained in this transmission is confidential and privileged information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete it.

Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinatário, pode conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é para uso exclusivo da pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa senhoria o destinatário indicado, fica notificado de que a leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou cópia sem autorização pode estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente. Se recebeu esta mensagem por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique imediatamente por esta mesma via e proceda a sua destruição