Re: [DBpedia-discussion] Semantic Web Browser

I tend to agree, Olivier. Sorry for rant ... 

I am building a Data Ecosystem for state government. They tried and failed with RDF. And the tooling is no better 10 yrs later - so we not using it.

IMHO, whilst data maybe "graph-y" - the producer and consumer doesn't know or care what that means. Too often, SW tools don't hide their implementation and intimidate the user. 

I like datao.net but it's non trivial for "business people" and data admin staff - it looks like Swing not HTML 5. So locked to desktop? No mobile or web? That's fine for y2k but not 2017. 

Abstract your RDF via API and render as rich HTML. Aim for a declarative rendering syntax. Not hard. The UI tools should also create/consume JSON (not even JSON-LD). Use RDF internally to manage semantics, sharing, governance, etc.

I spent 12 months trying to hire then train software engineers. Too hard. Make it so that only one pizza team works on RDF. The rest use whatever they prefer. 

Customers pay for solutions - not tech. They live in the real world - not academia. They want "real" ontologies - that align with their digital supply chains. They want to link systems together - accounts, CRM, projects, ERP, HR, etc. They to share, discover and mash up. They want tools that hide all the details. 

I work with UX specialists not data engineers. 

I wrote an Excel plug many (many) years ago. It simply queried via a REST endpoint and abstracted the graph into a table that they could readily understand. Don't try to change someone's religion. 

I've wrote a few low code environments using RDF (too soon) - we tied requirements to design to build and deploy and lifecycle. All integrated - we got a full semantic audit trail for free. Only a few coders care / can tell we used RDF and not NoSQL. 

I tend to talk about nouns & verbs & properties & relationships not edges, vectors, predicates etc. stop rendering as a graph and use drill downs and trees instead. Find better abstractions that your mom would understand. 

Now, after 10yrs of working and selling the dream - I stopped. SW is just not there and few in W3C  see the vision for business only for pet projects and personal data - it's a hobby to almost everyone except Kingsley :-) and it shows. Without the funding and real use cases - it can't ever be successful. 

I'll still lurk and next year - maybe build some new RDF powered apps. 

But I still can dream. So good luck - keep the faith  look for real world problems, solve them, profit and the invest in the community. (Maybe I can help - if someone who wants to do that - I may be able to fund)

Lee Curtis | M: +61 (0) 438 256 875


> On 11 Oct 2017, at 19:09, Olivier Rossel <olivier.rossel@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> As the implementor of Datao.net and search.datao.net, I have made such
> a journey.
> I have felt absolutely no support from the Semantic Web community.
> Basically for the following reasons:
> - very few people in the Semantic Web community actually manage
> datasets in operational conditions (so there is no linked data to
> browse, cf http://sparqles.ai.wu.ac.at/availability)
> - very few people in the Semantic Web community actually consume
> semantic data in their processes (so noone can evaluate which
> libraries/tools are lacking for a proper consumption of RDF data)
> 
> But of course our point is to inspire people outside the Semantic Web community.
> And such people/companies have immediate requirements to fullfill.
> So they go the full custom HTML5+JSON way. With pretty amazing results.
> (for example, https://www.opendatasoft.com/?__hstc=239539164.c62bee8362047fa3180c631e1cdb654a.1507707345605.1507707345605.1507707345605.1&__hssc=239539164.1.1507707345605&__hsfp=2249888257
> )
> They know RDF very well, but see no market for that.
> We must understand why.
> 
>> From my own point of view, the success of the Semantic Web could come
> with tooling for programmers.
> If we manage to provide a few things:
> - a spec & robust implementations for rights management at named graph level
> - a spec & robust implementations for SPARQL transactions management
> at HTTP level
> - a robust OGM (Object-Graph Mapper) in most major languages
> - a robust REST library to auto-serialize/deserialize RDF (for ex, an
> extension to Jersey)
> - a proper marketing of the N3.js library on the client (honestly,
> how many people even inside our community knows that fabulous lib?)
> 
> Basically, we need a stack.
> Why not create RDFonRails, by the way :)
> 
> (btw, Neo4J basically provide 90% of all that, and is pretty
> successful, so may be we should just jump on the bandwagon)
> 
> After that, we can again concentrate on data. (especially data inside companies)
> Honestly, noone outside the community understands (or cares) about OWL.
> RDFS+owl:domain/owl:range is enough for a awful LOT of usages.
> (once again, Neo4J provides something quite like that, and it is LOVED
> by IT developpers)
> 
> What is important and game changers in the outside world is:
> - typing data, and multityping it (:VERYYYYY powerful)
> - merging graphs coming from different sources dealing with the same
> resources for a more capable graph
> 
> What is extremely hard in the outside world:
> - sharing URIs.
> - sharing data, in general
> 
> All these points are addressed poorly by the community. Basically
> because we do not do it massively ourselves.
> 
> But the more important advice I can give after some time spent outside
> the Semantic Web community:
> do not build a browser (you would rebuild datao.net/search.datao.net.
> Believe me, noone cares.), build a fucking awesome add-on for
> Microsoft Excel.
> 
> *That* would definitely change the way people deal with data.
> 
> </End of the yell>
> 
> 
>> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 5:18 AM, Sebastian Samaruga <ssamarug@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm trying to clean up my last posted documents. I'd like to know if it is
>> possible to build a 'browser' or client for the Semantic Web as they exist
>> for HTML5. I think SW should do for 'data' what traditional Web (2.0) did
>> for document sharing.
>> 
>> We ended up building 'applications' (software user interfaces) over
>> technologies whose purpose was only distributed document editing.
>> 
>> We have no such practical starting point from which to evolve SW nor any
>> such widespread adoption. This could be regarded most as an advantage over
>> the Web of the past because there is no need to reinvent anything. And we
>> could start with a Web 3.0 already in its 'full potential'.
>> 
>> Such a SW 'browser' should not be an ontology editor or modelling tool.
>> Applications (declaratively) previously modeled should give advantages over
>> traditional web for a user but hiding the implementation details for the
>> developers of such applications.
>> 
>> Maybe some applications may perform CRUD over certain RDF / SPARQL or
>> whatever triple stores they are using but this should be regarded as backend
>> and not user experiences.
>> 
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OqsVn6uo0cr6qruzWj9yRASrmvAIAf4HsHuLS2aRSy8/edit?usp=drivesdk
>> 
>> This are some thoughts on the subject. Any help is welcome. Regards,
>> 
>> Sebasián.
>> 
>> 
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> _______________________________________________
>> DBpedia-discussion mailing list
>> DBpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dbpedia-discussion
>> 
>