Re: Trip Reports on Dagstuhl Seminar on Knowledge Graphs

> I beg to disagree: there are several proposals on reification for RDF

Sure, but proposals are a dime a dozen. Usable implementations and good
tools are much rarer. (Let's worry about standards much later, expending
the energy only when something is shown to work and gain traction.)

> there is RDF*, so things are moving on in exactly this direction.

That's interesting. I wasn't aware of RDF*. There seem to be a couple of
implementations. I need to look more closely at it.

> IMHO, it's not about inventing names, it's about recognizing gaps and
> closing them, abotu not throwing out the baby with the bathtub and
> re-inventing the wheel, about combining  and evolving successful
> approaches... whether terminology/naming evolves over time as well is
> secondary.

Sure, I agree. There *are* also good things to come from RDF. The use
of URIs as identifiers that you can also use to fetch more information
is a keeper for sure. If RDF* works, then we start to have a useful
annotation language, and that's great. Now we need to understand what
the interface between RDF (or KG) and things that are not, and should
not be RDF (or KG) looks like. (Such as sequences and tables -- yes,
I know you can do integers as Church numerals, and it's interesting,
but nobody actually does that, for good reason).

Best wishes,

William Waites | wwaites@inf.ed.ac.uk
Institute for Language, Cognition and Computation
School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh

Received on Thursday, 29 August 2019 08:40:56 UTC