Re: EasierRDF

On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 at 14:54, William Van Woensel <
William.Van.Woensel@dal.ca> wrote:

> Hi Hugh, Melvin,
>
>
>
> Which (I say) is nowhere near as successful as the SW was intended or
> hoped to be.
> What can you offer the WebDevs, rather than you? (It is the Semantic
> *Web*, after all).
> In fact, what can you offer Frederick?
>
> [..] He is trying to do something hard, and so it is hard.
> Is that right?
> Because he seems to be saying it is easier in other technologies.
>
> (Putting this as a top-level comment because I hid it in a prior answer)
> In light of Melvin’s comments: with regards to WebDev, there have been very
> recent efforts to make RDF more usable in JS (aptly called RDF-JS
> <https://rdf.js.org/data-model-spec/>) – checkout the N3.js
> <https://github.com/rdfjs/N3.js/> and graphy.js
> <https://github.com/blake-regalia/graphy.js> libraries. Not saying it’s
> as easy to use JSON in JS (JavaScript Object Notation may have a bit of an
> unfair advantage in, well, JavaScript).
>
> One can rather easily construct JS objects that encode a simple RDF graph
> (.. discounting cycles and such), as illustrated in the graphy.js docs
> <https://graphy.link/concise#hash_c3>.
>
> This could go some way in meeting Melvin’s suggestion of using plain old
> JSON as a basis, moving to vocabulary terms as object keys (and values,
> where needed), and to (other parts of) JSON-LD (not *such* a big leap
> actually) if folks are interested. I’m still unsure about the “first” step
> in this sequence, however, since I don’t know where the terms “name”,
> “born”, etc. are coming from; it’d become quite a mess if everyone is just
> using their own custom terminology.
>

RDF JS was a nice idea when it started, and it still is

However, inevitably it goes in the direction of more complexity.  In this
case adding RDF*

https://github.com/rdfjs-base/data-model/pull/24

IMHO a less complex semantic web would fill a void that exists today

>
>
> William
>
> > On 15 Feb 2022, at 00:22, <hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl> <
> hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl> wrote:
> >
> > Melvin,
> >
> > I want to respond to your comments in two emails.
> >
> > [MC] Yes, it's easier for web devs because:
> >
> > - it's JSON
> > [HT] There is more in the world than web devs; if so required we could
> use JSON-LD, not JSON
> >
> > - you dont need a parser -- this is a big deal
> > [HT] rfc4627 – par. 4.  Parsers
> >    A JSON parser transforms a JSON text into another representation.
> >    A JSON parser MUST accept all texts that conform to the JSON grammar.
> >    A JSON parser MAY accept non-JSON forms or extensions.
> >
> > - xsd -- few developers will even know what that is
> > [HT] Because they use JSON, and thus don’t know about XML Schema. How
> does JSON distinguish between an arithmetic number and a ZIP code?
> >
> > - turtle is a new syntax for most devs, they wont know what ex: is -- in
> fact, it isn’t even defined in your example
> > [HT] @prefix ex: <http://dbpedia.org/resource/> .   where ex: is often
> used in RDF or OWL examples for the prefix denoting ‘example’
> >
> > - people dont know what ^^ means
> > [HT] One is never too old to learn. I guess it means ‘member of’
> >
> > - a tiny portion of the web is turtle, a large portion is turtle,
> there's no practical way to handle that
> > [HT] Poor RDF-devs :(( , who have no tools at all....
> >
> > 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
> > [HT] Not in your world.
> >
> > Very important thing here about "ex:"
> > You've actually just made this data into a silo
> > [HT] In business data are in silo’s.
> >
> > With my example "name" in one JSON document is "name" in another JSON
> document
> > [HT] ‘name’ is 이름  in Korean. Actually they have 7 different words for
> ‘name’. Your mindset is too local (which is OK with me, don’t get me wrong)
> >
> > That is to say, JSON sent from one machine to another remains stable
> > [HT] Yeh. How many terms are standardized in JSON? In UK or US English?
> >
> > In your example, every different document will have a different
> namespace, depending on what 'ex:' is defined as, and whether it's absolute
> or relative.  In this case I assume it's relative
> > This actually guarantees that the data does NOT interoperate.  Whereas
> if we'd standarized (or can still standardize) the semantic web on JSON
> with URLs and optionally vocabs, all different aspects interoperate as and
> when you need them to
> > [HT] Do you have any idea how many sets of jargon terms there are? Our
> reference data library has some 40,000. In your example you used namespaces
> as well. Actually in the real world you can’t do without.
> http://dbpedia.org/resource/John_Lennon is the ident given to John Lennon
> in a declaration in dbpedia (which, btw, I don’t care about) and I assume
> that he has been typed as a Person. But we have, for one medium size
> process plant, well over 10,000 such declarations with a wild variety of
> equipment, instruments, pipes, and streams. And no plant owner wants his
> data to be in the same cloud as the data of his competitors.
> > Interoperation is done by federating triple stores under selective
> access rules.
> >
> > So, Melvin, you and your web devs aren’t the only ones using the
> semantic web. I respect your requirements, please do so with our
> requirements. Your stuff seems to be better for you, our stuff is better
> for us.
> >
> > Regards, Hans
> > ___________________________________________________
> > From: hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl <hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl>
> > Sent: maandag 14 februari 2022 18:07
> > To: 'Melvin Carvalho' <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>; 'Frederik Byl' <
> frederik.byl@gmail.com>
> > Cc: 'Semantic Web' <semantic-web@w3.org>; 'David Booth' <
> david@dbooth.org>
> > Subject: RE: EasierRDF
> >
> > 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 .
> > ?
> >
> > 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.
> > 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?
> >
> > 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
>
>