On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 at 23:10, Hugh Glaser <hugh@glasers.org> wrote:
>
>
> > On 15 Feb 2022, at 20:37, Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@atomgraph.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > My point is that JSON is no more an alternative to Tensorflow than it is
> an alternative to RDF graphs. Both ML and KGs are rather complex
> technologies solving complex problems, with application spaces that are
> larger and/or different from what is usually done with JSON. So this
> EasierRDF debate is comparing apples to oranges from the start.
> >
> >
> Perhaps your idea of solving “complex problems” illustrates some of the
> difficulty in the discussion.
>
> I want to use KG to solve *simple* problems (as well as complex ones,
> perhaps).
> And I would like to use SW & LD technologies.
> (And I suspect that there are many others who do too.)
> Not least because it will enable me to make my work more complex as time
> goes by.
>
> If you want to tell me to go and use something else because SW+LD are only
> for "complex problems", then do so.
>
You can turn the problem around
Instead of making JSON (which is simple) conform to RDF (which is complex)
Just make RDF parsers conform to JSON, if it wants to interact with the
semantic web, as defined by machine and human readable data
>
> If someone wants to claim they are suitable for simple problems as
> encountered every day by WebDevs, then that is a hard claim to
> substantiate, although I don’t see anyone trying to do that, here, so maybe
> they aren’t.
>
> And we should tell Frederik Byl SW is the wrong tech for what he wants?
>
> But it still begs the question:
> If I want to use, as you say
> > KGs are rather complex technologies solving complex problems
> (KGs to solve complex problems)
> why is Neo4J apparently so much more successful in terms of KG adoption
> than our SW KG technology?
>