Re: Pragmatic Problems in the RDF Ecosystem (Was: Re: Toward easier RDF: a proposal)

Hi Steven,
Very interesting points. Please let me try below inline to understand better some of your “frustrations"

> Le 27 nov. 2018 à 14:27, Steven Harms <sgharms@stevengharms.com> a écrit :
> 
> All,
> 
> I've posted this online at my site for long-form reading (https://stevengharms.com/research/semweb-topic/2018-11-26-toward-easier-rdf/#post <https://stevengharms.com/research/semweb-topic/2018-11-26-toward-easier-rdf/#post>) but will include the full, long text below for those preferring the mail reader interface.
> 
> Esteemed SW Community,
> 
> I've been silent on this list because I am not a practising ontologist. I'm
> (just a) "middle 33% developer" who thought that making a graph of knowledge
> about books would be interesting[0]. I've tried to document[1] my experiences,
> up to the point a few weeks ago that I ground to a halt. When I saw David's
> post[2], I was excited because I thought it might occasion discussion around
> the simple, pragmatic problems that stymied me. 
> 
> I'd like to list a few signals that RDF* sends in the first hour of exploration
> to the pragmatic 33%-er (me)  that suggest that the explorer's further time
> won't pay off. I've also spent 2 hours with a near-identical (hand-wave)
> competitor, [AirTable][9], where I was able to get my prototype up and running in
> under 2 hours[10]. Based on these criticisms and comparison with the
> marketplace, a developer curious about RDF* receives ample signal to "close
> tabs, move on," and drop out of the funnel.
> 
> A. Lack of a Clear Entry Point
> ==============================
> 
> Compare "How do I write React" Google results with "How do I write RDF" Google
> results.
> 
> * React's first hit[3] is served by its authority (reactjs.org <http://reactjs.org/>). It links
>   to a description that is compelling, welcoming, and relatively easily
>   scanned.  It's visually attractive and modern as well. It looks maintained.
> 
> Versus:
> 
> * RDF's first hit is hosted by w3schools.com <http://w3schools.com/>[4] and feels scanty (NB: Not even
> * a W3C link!)
> * RDF's second hit is hosted by a site whose look and feel is akin to a
>   textbook[5] and is equally exciting
> * RDF's third hit[6] is the same
> * RDF's fourth hit [7] is the first link that starts educating on the Jena API
> 
> These sites look state of the art for the pre-Clinton era. Should one actually
> find the W3C spec, the look-and-feel there (to say nothing of the writing style
> and tone) suggests "Keep moving, peasant."
> 
> As a pragmatic 33%-er, my intuition is screaming "Close tabs; abort.”

What would have been different if you started by searching for “tools/library to create knowledge graph” ? Even better, “how to create structured data in RDF”? 
You will have seen things like schema.org <http://schema.org/>, google structured data tooling, JSON-LD and probably Wikidata 
> 
> B. Lack of Technology Framing
> =============================
> 
> Compare the React home[2] to any of those previous links [3][4][5][6]. The
> navigational tree hits topics that provide "big picture," "tools required,"
> "help if you get stuck," "what is this technology," and "when is it an optimal
> choice?" By comparison, I don't have any idea what RDF* thinks its use or chief
> benefits are.
> 
> To the pragmatic 33%-er, React's site says: "You're welcome here, prepare to be
> awesome.”

If you searched for "rdf tools”, you’ll find this link to W3C https://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/Tools <https://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/Tools> (maybe not up to date), but could be a starter. 
> 
> C. A Highly Fractured Ecosystem
> ===============================
> 
> Said Booth:
> 
> > a painful reality has emerged: RDF is too hard for *average* developers.  By
> > "average developers" I mean those in the middle 33 percent of ability. And by
> > "RDF", I mean the whole RDF ecosystem -- including SPARQL, OWL, tools,
> > standards, etc. -- everything that a developer touches when using RDF.
> 
> While RDF is wonderfully graspable in its simplicity: triples that can be
> serialized into multiple formats; its ecosystem  of clever acronyms and
> backronyms is tedious, over-precious, and opaque.  RDF* requires the learner to
> hold too many cognitive circuits open before anything starts to resolve. React
> avoids this by doing complete layers (e.g. no classes, classes without JSX,
> classes with JSX) where complete, albeit small, artifacts are created
> repeatedly.
> 
> Most of these technologies' defining document is a W3C standard written in the
> opaque style of W3C standards (see Sporny, at length). While these standards
> cover cases exhaustively, they're difficult to understand applying to a toy
> example.  React makes tic-tac-toe from which I can extrapolate Twitter
> integrations or JavaScript widgets. RDF* has no such entry point.
> 
> Supposing one finds a canonical entry point, RDF* feels like it solves someone
> else's problem and not mine (close tab; bye!). 

W3C also provides some BP documents for some aspects of using RDF and related specs. Just search for "best practices rdf” on Google. 


Best,

Ghislain 
---------------------------------------
Ghislain A. Atemezing, Ph.D
Mail: ghislain.atemezing@gmail.com
Web: https://w3id.org/people/gatemezing <http://www.atemezing.org/>
Twitter: @gatemezing
About Me: https://about.me/ghislain.atemezing <https://about.me/ghislain.atemezing>