good to know that we are on the same page here Adam. With regards to json let's limit the scope of the discussion here to the Jena project for now. I am not looking at an alternative to JSON-LD, correct my if I am wrong but as far as my limited understanding of JSON-LD goes it is a way to store/serialize RDF like data in a json format. while my use case would be a customer that presents any data in json and wants me to read this into a sparql endpoint for further inspection (with bnodes for arrays, warts and all). Currently I have to programmatically write transformations to allow me to read the data into a Jena store. Can JSON-LD already help me with this task?
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 12:47 PM ajs6f <aj...@apache.org> wrote: > I agree _very heartily_ with the caution that Andy and Marco are > expressing. I've been following the conversation on semantic-...@w3.org > and I have yet to hear anything that seems very useful or practical to me. > > That having been said, and speaking very much as a member of W3C's JSON-LD > Working Group, I'm also not ecstatic about setting up an alternative to > JSON-LD. Perhaps you could say a little about why it's not a good choice > for data access? I would hope that you would be able to equip your generic > JSON with a JSON-LD context and roll on without any special new Jena > tooling needed... is that not possible (or optimal) for some reason? If > it's related to Jena, we can talk about it here, and if it's related to > JSON-LD, I'd be very happy to take your concern to the WG. > > ajs6f > > > On Nov 29, 2018, at 7:40 AM, Marco Neumann <marco.neum...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > I agree Andy, there is no need to rush things here and break the API. > Maybe > > we could provide an in memory model for "Generalized RDF" as sandbox for > > people to play with. But what I'd like to see are more bridges to the > json > > community as it has become the defacto lingua franca for data exchange on > > the web now. > > > > In particular with regards to generic json rather than json-ld. possibly > a > > generic mapping to a json dataset assembler could work for data access > and > > transformation. has anybody done anything here already? > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 2:11 PM Andy Seaborne <a...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> Internally, that means Graph/Node/Triple and the ARQ engine, Jena really > >> works on what is called "Generalized RDF" in RDF 1.1 - so literals as > >> subjects, literals as predicates blank nodes as predicates - work just > >> fine. Whether they are a good idea is a different question. > >> > >> RDF* works as well (in-memory graphs). Jena has Node_Triple and > >> Node_Graph nowadays for completeness. > >> > >> If we get into structured values (lists not encoded in triples, > >> sets/bags as datastructures - and these are things property graphs and > >> traditionally SQL also find it hard to handle), there would be work to > >> do, but it's not impossible. > >> > >> The impact is on the Model API is where the impact is. > >> > >> Personal opinion about changing the core specs: > >> > >> Being "better"isn't enough. There is lots of investment in people's > >> time and energy has gone in to learning about RDF and communicating > >> about RDF. > >> > >> The impact is when new data meets old apps but also existing > >> thinking/learning/blogs/books/... > >> > >> Changes to the basics need to meet a higher barrier than "better". > >> > >> Andy > >> > >> On 22/11/2018 13:13, Marco Neumann wrote: > >>> are we prepared in Jena for such a move on the RDF syntax? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- > >>> From: Tim Berners-Lee <ti...@w3.org> > >>> Date: Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 1:05 PM > >>> Subject: ✅ Literals as subjects Re: Toward easier RDF: a proposal > >>> To: David Booth <da...@dbooth.org> > >>> Cc: SW-forum Web <semantic-...@w3.org>, Dan Brickley < > dan...@google.com > >>> , > >>> Sean B. Palmer <s...@miscoranda.com>, Olaf Hartig <olaf.har...@liu.se > >, > >>> Axel Polleres <a...@polleres.net> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 2018-11 -21, at 22:40, David Booth <da...@dbooth.org> wrote: > >>> > >>> 7. Literals as subjects. RDF should allow "anyone to say > >>> anything about anything", but RDF does not currently allow > >>> literals as subjects! (One work-around is to use -- you guessed > >>> it -- a blank node, which in turn is asserted to be owl:sameAs > >>> the literal.) This deficiency may seem unimportant relative > >>> to other RDF difficulties, but it is a peculiar anomaly that > >>> may have greater impact than we realize. Imagine an *average* > >>> developer, new to RDF, who unknowingly violates this rule and > >>> is puzzled when it doesn't work. Negative experiences like > >>> that drive people away. Even more insidiously, imagine this > >>> developer tries to CONSTRUCT triples using a SPARQL query, > >>> and some of those triples happen to have literals in the > >>> subject position. Per the SPARQL standard, those triples will > >>> be silently eliminated from the results,[13] which could lead > >>> to silently producing wrong answers from the application -- > >>> the worst of all possible bugs. > >>> > >>> > >>> Agreed. > >>> > >>> I thought we had fixed that in some later spec but I guess not. > >>> > >>> All code I have written, like cwm and rdflib.js, allows the same things > >> in > >>> subject and object positions. Life is too short for arbitrary > >> unnecessary > >>> asymmetry. > >>> > >>> timbl > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > -- > > > > > > --- > > Marco Neumann > > KONA > > -- --- Marco Neumann KONA
