Re: EasierRDF

On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 at 18:07, <hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl> wrote:

> Melvin,
>
>
>
> Is your:
>
>
>
> <script type="application/ld+json">
>
>   {
>
>     "@id": "http://dbpedia.org/resource/John_Lennon",
>
>     "name": "John Lennon",
>
>     "born": "1940-10-09",
>
>     "spouse": "http://dbpedia.org/resource/Cynthia_Lennon"
>
>   }
>
> </script>
>
>
>
> easier than:
>
>
>
> ex:John_Lennon
>
>             ex:name "John Lennon" ;
>
>             ex:born "1940-10-09"^^xsd:date ;
>
>             ex:spouse ex:Cynthia_Lennon .
>
> ?
>

Yes, it's easier for web devs because:

- it's JSON
- you dont need a parser -- this is a big deal
- xsd -- few developers will even know what that is
- turtle is a new syntax for most devs, they wont know what ex: is -- in
fact, it esint even defined in your example
- people dont know what ^^ means
- a tiny portion of the web is turtle, a large portion is turtle, there's
no practical way to handle that


>
>
> And please speak for yourself when claiming:  “..... *creating and
> maintaining ontologies (which let's face it, almost no one does or cares
> about today)*”.
>
> I do care and I know there are more who do. I do care because I am caring
> for interoperability and for life-cycle information integration. That
> requires precise typing and a global reference library.
>

What I mean is that nobody (slightly tongue-in-cheek) cares about what's IN
the ontology, descriptions, labels, OWL.  People use schema.org for the
name spacing and the SEO.  People care about name spacing, they dont care
about inferencing.  It's hard to even find wide spread examples of
inferencing used in the wild


> It is the modeling sloppiness that is invited and permitted by these
> languages that is the problem. Imho it is not much more precise than
> writing something on a piece of paper.
>
>
>
> Finally this: “....libraries are yet to be built out” –some kind of
> ontologies anyway?
>

getObject(URI) -> gives you JSON for that object

change it, and it could auto update, assuming you have write permission


>
>
> Regards, Hans
>
> 15926.org
>
> __________________________________________
>
> *From:* Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* maandag 14 februari 2022 15:49
> *To:* Frederik Byl <frederik.byl@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>; David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
> *Subject:* Re: EasierRDF
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 at 13:24, Frederik Byl <frederik.byl@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear community,
>
>
>
> I came across the project https://github.com/w3c/EasierRDF. I think it is
> a good idea to have a look at RDF and the challenges it has. I'm struggling
> with the use, because the work that is necessary to make systems
> interoperable by understanding ontologies, formatting the data, extending
> ontologies, writing queries, etc, is huge! I am a big fan of graph
> databases and the ease of using Neo4j, Cypher, plain json and writing
> converters between readable json formats is so much faster and developer
> friendly. Queries in Cypher are intuitively and can be understood on sight.
> I am also looking at Solid and I find the approach of data pods extremely
> interesting and relevant, but the structure is so overwhelming and
> overcomplicated that I start losing faith in this. Since the project
> EasierRDF is started, I guess others struggle with the same? Are there some
> major advantages of using RDF and Sparql over Neo4j and Cypher? We could do
> linked data with Json-ld and Neo4j?
>
>
>
> I came to realize than in 15 years of heavy RDF use, the useful 10% is
> what I use 90% of the time
>
>
>
> You might want to look at this one-pager which tries to take some of the
> useful bits of RDF (@id @type @context) and add it to JSON
>
>
>
> https://linkedobjects.org/
>
>
>
> It is for beginners getting started, and has an upgrade path to JSON-LD
> and full RDF, for those that want it.  It's also compatible with plain old
> JSON, without needing the overhead of creating and maintaining ontologies
> (which let's face it, almost no one does or cares about today)
>
>
>
> Use cases and libraries are yet to be built out, but hopefully some food
> for thought
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Frederik
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> Van: *David Booth* <david@dbooth.org>
> Date: do 10 feb. 2022 om 16:56
> Subject: Re: EasierRDF
> To: Frederik Byl <frederik.byl@gmail.com>
>
>
>
> Hi Frederik,
>
> You are asking an excellent question, and I think the community as a
> whole would benefit from discussing it on a public list, both to get
> more viewpoints and to expose your question to other existing RDF users.
>   Would you be willing to post your question to the public
> semantic-web@w3.org list?
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/
>
> Thanks,
> David Booth
>
> On 2/10/22 10:43, Frederik Byl wrote:
> > Dear David,
> >
> > I am sorry to contact you in this straightforward manner. I came across
> > your project https://github.com/w3c/EasierRDF
> > <https://github.com/w3c/EasierRDF>. I think it is a good idea to have a
> > look at RDF and the challenges it has. I'm struggling with the use and
> > the work that is necessary to make systems interoperable by
> > understanding ontologies, formatting the data, extending ontologies etc,
> > is huge! I am a big fan of graph databases and the ease of using Neo4j
> > and plain json and writing converters between readable json formats is
> > so much faster and developer friendly. I am also looking at Solid and I
> > find the approach of data pods extremely interesting and relevant, but
> > the structure is so overwhelming and overcomplicated that I start losing
> > faith in this.Since you started the project Easier RDF, I guess you
> > struggle with the same, or do you see some major advantages in using RDF?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Frederik
>
>