Re: EasierRDF

On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 at 00:49, William Van Woensel <
William.Van.Woensel@dal.ca> wrote:

> Hi Melvin,
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>                 Can you please elaborate on where these properties “name”,
> “born”, “spouse” are coming from? Are they exhaustively listed somewhere?
> Or can any publisher simply use their “own” properties? If so, how do
> clients know what keys to use to get the name, birthdate, spouse, .. of
> objects from different publishers? (“born” is not as meaningful as you may
> think – it could refer to place of birth too, for instance) Or, what if
> some publishers want to be more fine-grained (first name, initials, last
> name)? Would clients need to utilize NLP methods?
>

It's just JSON.  So, same as the way any JSON API is used on the web today


>
>
> I believe you’re equating the utility of ontologies with inferencing
> (correct me if I’m wrong), but IMO their core purpose is precisely to
> define *shared* vocabularies for concepts like these (first/last name,
> birthdate, birthplace, ..) (A.k.a., a “shared conceptualization of a
> domain”.). Software clients, programmed to recognize a set of well-known
> vocabularies, can understand all content published using those vocabularies.
>

The taxonomy and name spacing is useful

But so often they are human readable guides, rather than pulling in the
triples and inferring from them.  Sometimes the machine readable triples
are missing, and the s/w doesnt really notice

In tabulator we did make use of this, by pulling in labels and
descriptions, functional properties and smushing.  But I mean it would fall
back to the string so FOAF -> Person is labeled "Person"


>
>
> Re the discussion around “ex:” – of course, if everyone uses their own
> vocabulary this will defeat the whole purpose. I don’t think that was the
> takeaway of that example (it rather concerned the Turtle vs. JSON syntax).
>

So, I was saying that JSON is simpler for web devs.  The ex: vocab if it's
relative, which I expect, would ensure that keys are NOT matched.  In JSON
APIs they are matched by keys.


>
>
> JSON keys OTOH are simply JSON keys and can be compared character for
> character
>
>
>
> So are RDF terms :-) A client that is pre-programmed with a known set of
> vocabularies can compare the found RDF terms character-by-character to
> their programmed vocabularies, and then do something useful with the data.
>

As I said, not with relative URIs.

It's also not back compat with regular JSON.  Dont you think RDF would be
so much better if every JSON API on the web would work with it?

Devs could then start off with JSON and then when they are ready use shared
vocabs, and get the benefits.  There's an on ramp for all levels of
ability, and for those wanting to use full RDF the path is there

I've laid out why turtle doesnt work.  I'm sad about that, because I like
turtle despite its limitations.  You can just about do most things.  But
its usefulness relies on people accepting it as a de facto standard.  And
really that's not the case.  If anything JSON is the de facto standard.


>
>
>
>
> William
>
>
>
> __________________________________________
>
> *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
>
>