Re: SemWeb + LLMs etc, here or a new group?

út 26. 9. 2023 v 3:01 odesílatel Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com> napsal:

> Something big & new has arrived, but it is at a tangent to regular
> business, so maybe a new Community Group/list or whatever should be
> considered. I don't know what folks think about boundaries. Let me tell you
> my story...
>
> I'm asking because I've been playing with it a bit, one specific angle,
> using LlamaIndex to use Graph Retrieval Augmented Generation against
> OpenAI's GPT API. Sorry, I haven't links at hand, but the papers on RAG and
> Graph RAG, Graph of Thoughts are on arXiv. I have very naive code that runs
> at :
>
> https://github.com/danja/llama_index/blob/main/docs/examples/graph_stores/graph-rag-sparql-mini.py
>
> (Isn't ego great? Found my own thing immediately).
>
> My immediate conclusions are that conceptually it's a no--brainer to
> attach such systems to Linked Data (naturally a moderate pain in practice).
> LLMs expect verbals, so you give them, them. A RAG has RDF graph URLs as
> pointers, it looks them up (HTTP, HTTP), chases the schema definition,
> pulls in the definition of the property or class, it has a sentence
> comparable to the texts it's been trained on. It's very floppy, but I
> believe potentially useful.
>
> (I spent a long time bugged by this - surely we can just give URIs to the
> LLM as some kind of first class token? I still haven't a clue, but for now
> there are easier ways in).
>
> I accidentally came up with a TED Talk-style analogy that might work
> for the big picture. For something unrelated I typed in 'warp start' when I
> meant 'yarn start'. How I giggled! But yeah, the Web (very strongly
> including Linked Data, as much OWLishness as you want) is a clear Warp,
> where the AI bits can fill it out with Weft of information fabric.
> (Apologies to Tim re. book-naming).
>
> So yeah, in a rambly way, do you see why I think another group is
> something to bear in mind? Personally I'm happy either way, as long as the
> W3C tries to keep their eye on the ball. Blockchain Web3, maybe not so
> much. But LLMs, I'd say in scope, here or somewhere parallel.
>

LLMs are useful.  Perhaps early versions of Enquire were ahead of their
time.

However, they can equally use plain text, JSON, 1-5 star linked data, and
RDF.

If we were to call RDF 5* linked data, in what use cases would that give
you an advantage over, say 1-4.5* linked data?

Perhaps when full follow-your-nose capabilities are added it may yield some
interesting results.

But I have yet to figure out use cases for RDF that *significantly* out
perform text analysis, or a website with schema.org sprinkles.


>
> Cheers,
> Danny.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> ----
>
> https://hyperdata.it <http://hyperdata.it/danja>
>
>