W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > October 2017

Re: [DBpedia-discussion] Semantic Web Browser

From: Olivier Rossel <olivier.rossel@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:09:13 +0200
Message-ID: <CAM0wMfTBRLD-R-8dBY1mnffLfSb5bRTXac8Dye6DKKeo8fFrHQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sebastian Samaruga <ssamarug@gmail.com>
Cc: W3C Semantic Web IG <semantic-web@w3.org>, public-rww <public-rww@w3.org>, DBpedia <Dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net>, pragmaticweb@lists.spline.inf.fu-berlin.de
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
Received on Wednesday, 11 October 2017 08:09:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 October 2017 08:10:08 UTC