Re: Knowledge graph toolkit

Le sam. 2 mai 2020 à 19:39, Adrian Gschwend <ml-ktk@netlabs.org> a écrit :
>
> On 02.05.20 10:34, Amirouche Boubekki wrote:
>
> > The problem is the same with RDF stores, they do not scale in terms of
> > features and use-cases, for the same reasons. This leads to an unbound
> > microservices mess.
>
> I don't know where to start with this email so I keep it to a minimum:
> You did not even try to define "scale",

I quote what you quoted: "scale in terms of features and use-cases"
which refers to the previous paragraph that you did not quote where I
explain that in a realistic scenario where one wants to do modern
artificial intelligence it requires more than what current RDF store
offer. What is required is indeed a relational database like RDF
describes. But more than that, a modern AI system has to tackle
heterogeneous data types that do not blend nicely into the RDF
framework. I forgot to mention geometric data. I forgot to mention
strong ACID guarantees.

> the rest you write has little or no relation to RDF and in the end you recommend FoundationDB out of the blue.

It has to do with RDF with the fact that people spread the idea that
RDF framework is a go to solution to do semantic work. Except, it does
not provide a solution for:

- full text search
- geometric search
- keyword suggestion (approximate string matching)
- historisation
- ACID guarantees

And probably others that I forget.

>
> There are organizations out there that scale RDF based knowledge graphs
> in large scenarios and run profitable businesses on it so I have no idea
> how you come to your conclusions.
>

Two things:

1) For the record: money is not Science. Profitable does not
necessarily mean a Good Thing.

2) There is not publicly available project using publicly available
software that scale beyond 1TB.

Indeed, when one asks me my advice about a _basic_ toolkit to do KG, I
recommend FDB, because it can handle all the cases previously
mentioned. And also I do not to forget to mention that it is a long
journey, especially if you want to be valid in the regard of RDF
standard.

As far as I am concerned RDF offers good guiding principles, but it
requires decades long of study (much like compiler work) to grasp
which is a bummer. I ought to be simpler, much simpler and that is
what I am doing in my projects: taking the best of RDF and leaving
aside what is not necessary.

I am all in favor of standards and common grounds to discuss further
ideas and elaborate complex, or in the interim of something simpler,
complicated, and build large sustainable entities. RDF 1.1
(https://www.w3.org/TR/?title=rdf) is a good thing, I am happy it
exists.  But I will not forsake advancement and innovation for the
purpose of backward compatibility with something that is so gigantic,
especially when something easier is possible.

> regards
>
> Adrian
>
>


-- 
Amirouche ~ https://hyper.dev

Received on Sunday, 3 May 2020 06:43:58 UTC