 |
 |
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Ed Summers <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Eric Lease Morgan <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > This is hard. The Semantic Web (and RDF) attempt at codifying knowledge > using a strict syntax, specifically a strict syntax of triples. It is very > difficult for humans to articulate knowledge, let alone codifying it. How > realistic is the idea of the Semantic Web? I wonder this not because I > don’t think the technology can handle the problem. I say this because I > think people can’t (or have great difficulty) succinctly articulating > knowledge. Or maybe knowledge does not fit into triples? > > I think you're right Eric. I don't think knowledge can be encoded > completely in triples, any more than it can be encoded completely in > finding aids or books. > Or... anything, honestly. We're humans. Our understanding and perception of the universe changes daily. I don't think it's unreasonable to accept that any description of the universe, input by a human, will reflect the fundamental reality that was was encoded might be wrong. I don't really buy the argument that RDF is somehow less capable of "succinctly articulating knowledge" compared to anything else. "All models are wrong. Some are useful." > > One thing that I (naively) wasn't fully aware of when I started > dabbling the Semantic Web and Linked Data is how much the technology > is entangled with debates about the philosophy of language. These > debates play out in a variety of ways, but most notably in > disagreements about the nature of a resource (httpRange-14) in Web > Architecture. Shameless plug: Dorothea Salo and I tried to write about > how some of this impacts the domain of the library/archive [1]. > > OTOH, schema.org doesn't concern itself at all with this dichotomy (information vs. non-information resource) and I think that most (sane, pragmatic) practitioners would consider that "linked data", as well. Given the fact that schema.org is so easily mapped to RDF, I think this argument is going to be so polluted (if it isn't already) that it will eventually have to evolve to a far less academic position. One of the strengths of RDF is its notion of a data model that is > behind the various serializations (xml, ntriples, json, n3, turtle, > etc). I'm with Ross though: I find it much to read rdf as turtle or > json-ld than it is rdf/xml. > > This is definitely where RDF outclasses almost every alternative*, because each serialization (besides RDF/XML) works extremely well for specific purposes: Turtle is great for writing RDF (either to humans or computers) and being able to understand what is being modeled. n-triples/quads is great for sharing data in bulk. json-ld is ideal for API responses, since the consumer doesn't have to know anything about RDF to have a useful data object, but if they do, all the better. -Ross. * Unless you're writing a parser, then having a kajillion serializations seriously sucks.