ivan herman w3c. (2) current rdf has been published in 2004 significant deployment since then ◦...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Ivan Herman W3C. (2) Current RDF has been published in 2004 Significant deployment since then ◦ implementation experiences ◦ users’ experiences](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033101/56649c9e5503460f9495d9e3/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
RDF NextIvan Herman
W3C
![Page 2: Ivan Herman W3C. (2) Current RDF has been published in 2004 Significant deployment since then ◦ implementation experiences ◦ users’ experiences](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033101/56649c9e5503460f9495d9e3/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
(2)
Current RDF has been published in 2004 Significant deployment since then
◦ implementation experiences◦ users’ experiences
Some cracks, missing functionalities, etc, came to the fore
There are significant communities that have not picked up RDF◦ e.g., Web Developers
History
![Page 3: Ivan Herman W3C. (2) Current RDF has been published in 2004 Significant deployment since then ◦ implementation experiences ◦ users’ experiences](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033101/56649c9e5503460f9495d9e3/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
(3)
Shall we◦ live with those issues and go on with our lives?◦ dump it and start all over again from scratch?◦ do some minimal changes?
The question
![Page 4: Ivan Herman W3C. (2) Current RDF has been published in 2004 Significant deployment since then ◦ implementation experiences ◦ users’ experiences](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033101/56649c9e5503460f9495d9e3/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
(4)
W3C organized a Workshop in June 2010◦ 32 submissions, 28 accepted, 18 were presented at
the workshop◦ 2 busy days at Stanford (courtesy of NCBO)
The W3C “RDF Next Step” Workshop
![Page 5: Ivan Herman W3C. (2) Current RDF has been published in 2004 Significant deployment since then ◦ implementation experiences ◦ users’ experiences](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033101/56649c9e5503460f9495d9e3/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
(5) 5
![Page 6: Ivan Herman W3C. (2) Current RDF has been published in 2004 Significant deployment since then ◦ implementation experiences ◦ users’ experiences](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033101/56649c9e5503460f9495d9e3/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
(6)
What we did…
Try to answer the question: live with it, redo it, mend it…◦ if something has to be changed, what is it and with
what priority? Give a list of possible work items, with
priorities
![Page 7: Ivan Herman W3C. (2) Current RDF has been published in 2004 Significant deployment since then ◦ implementation experiences ◦ users’ experiences](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033101/56649c9e5503460f9495d9e3/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
(7)
Yes, it is probably o.k. to touch some issues But we have to be very careful not to send the
wrong signal to adopters, tool providers, etc. I.e.: keep the changes to the minimum
The general feeling…
![Page 8: Ivan Herman W3C. (2) Current RDF has been published in 2004 Significant deployment since then ◦ implementation experiences ◦ users’ experiences](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033101/56649c9e5503460f9495d9e3/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
(8)
The straw poll result
![Page 9: Ivan Herman W3C. (2) Current RDF has been published in 2004 Significant deployment since then ◦ implementation experiences ◦ users’ experiences](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033101/56649c9e5503460f9495d9e3/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
(9)
Workshop report published:◦ http://www.w3.org/2009/12/rdf-ws/Report.html
W3C Team began working on chartering …but felt the larger community should be
asked A questionnaire was published in August 2010
◦ http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/rdf-2010/results And, of course, lots of discussion on various
fora
Follow up
![Page 10: Ivan Herman W3C. (2) Current RDF has been published in 2004 Significant deployment since then ◦ implementation experiences ◦ users’ experiences](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033101/56649c9e5503460f9495d9e3/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
(10)
I will list the major items that came up during the discussions◦ mostly the Workshop+Questionnaire, plus some
others I will list them in the order of
◦ may end up in the RDF Working Group Charter◦ should be done but not clear yet where and how◦ postpone it for now
In what follows…
![Page 11: Ivan Herman W3C. (2) Current RDF has been published in 2004 Significant deployment since then ◦ implementation experiences ◦ users’ experiences](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033101/56649c9e5503460f9495d9e3/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
(11)
“Charter candidates”Part I: required features
![Page 12: Ivan Herman W3C. (2) Current RDF has been published in 2004 Significant deployment since then ◦ implementation experiences ◦ users’ experiences](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033101/56649c9e5503460f9495d9e3/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
(12)
There are some errata that have to be taken care of◦ exact relationship to IRI-s◦ more flexible references to XML versions◦ etc
Not worth discussing them here
The obvious issues
![Page 13: Ivan Herman W3C. (2) Current RDF has been published in 2004 Significant deployment since then ◦ implementation experiences ◦ users’ experiences](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033101/56649c9e5503460f9495d9e3/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
(13)
A.k.a. “named graphs”, “quoted graphs”, “knowledge bases”
Is on the top of all priority lists… But the semantics is not absolutely clear
◦ e.g., are we talking about a mutable or immutable collection of triples?
◦ maybe we have two different concepts here…
“Graph identification”
![Page 14: Ivan Herman W3C. (2) Current RDF has been published in 2004 Significant deployment since then ◦ implementation experiences ◦ users’ experiences](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033101/56649c9e5503460f9495d9e3/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
(14)
We have a stable “team submission”, widely used by the community◦ another top priority item…
Additional syntax should be added for graph identification
Turtle serialization syntax
![Page 15: Ivan Herman W3C. (2) Current RDF has been published in 2004 Significant deployment since then ◦ implementation experiences ◦ users’ experiences](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033101/56649c9e5503460f9495d9e3/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
(15)
Is essential for Web Developers The syntax may not be a complete syntax; to
be decided as we go◦ e.g., no blank nodes, only syntax for Skolemized
nodes The syntax may also include tools for lists,
graph identification, etc. Note that it may make sense to separate that
into a different group…
JSON serialization syntax
![Page 16: Ivan Herman W3C. (2) Current RDF has been published in 2004 Significant deployment since then ◦ implementation experiences ◦ users’ experiences](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033101/56649c9e5503460f9495d9e3/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
(16)
Some features may be deprecated: reification, containers, …
Unclear what “deprecation” means in this context◦ old RDF graphs should not become invalid…
Deprecation
![Page 17: Ivan Herman W3C. (2) Current RDF has been published in 2004 Significant deployment since then ◦ implementation experiences ◦ users’ experiences](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033101/56649c9e5503460f9495d9e3/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
(17)
A number of semantics extensions and features have appeared in Recommendations since◦ rdf:plainLiteral◦ “finite” versions of RDF(S) semantics as part of the
SPARQL 1.1 entailment regimes◦ bridge between URI-s as strings and RDF resources
in POWDER Probably useful to reconcile these in one place
for wider and easier adoption
Reconcile semantics documents
![Page 18: Ivan Herman W3C. (2) Current RDF has been published in 2004 Significant deployment since then ◦ implementation experiences ◦ users’ experiences](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033101/56649c9e5503460f9495d9e3/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
(18)
“Charter candidates”Part II: time-permitting features
![Page 19: Ivan Herman W3C. (2) Current RDF has been published in 2004 Significant deployment since then ◦ implementation experiences ◦ users’ experiences](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033101/56649c9e5503460f9495d9e3/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
(19)
oData, for example, is gaining ground:◦ “…Web protocol for querying and updating data that
provides a way to unlock your data and free it from silos that exist in applications today”
Relationship between RDF and these should be defined◦ oData/Atom based serialization of RDF?
Atom, oData, gData…
![Page 20: Ivan Herman W3C. (2) Current RDF has been published in 2004 Significant deployment since then ◦ implementation experiences ◦ users’ experiences](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033101/56649c9e5503460f9495d9e3/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
(20)
General guidelines for bnode Skolemization◦ e.g., define a scheme of the form
http://bnode.w3.org/{uuid}◦ … that could be used by some syntaxes, ie,
consumers would know that this is, in fact, an anonymous node
There are a number of Recommendation that rely on Skolemization (e.g., SPARQL)
Bnode Skolemization
![Page 21: Ivan Herman W3C. (2) Current RDF has been published in 2004 Significant deployment since then ◦ implementation experiences ◦ users’ experiences](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033101/56649c9e5503460f9495d9e3/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
(21)
We currently have plain literal, xsd:string, rdf:plainLiteral…◦ it leads to, e.g., convoluted SPARQL queries
These should be harmonized
Harmonize plain literal management
![Page 22: Ivan Herman W3C. (2) Current RDF has been published in 2004 Significant deployment since then ◦ implementation experiences ◦ users’ experiences](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033101/56649c9e5503460f9495d9e3/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
(22)
Refresh the vocabulary examples being used Multi-syntax example (like, e.g., the OWL
documents) Linked Data guidelines should be included
◦ “follow your nose”◦ usage of owl:sameAs or others◦ etc.
Update the RDF Primer
![Page 23: Ivan Herman W3C. (2) Current RDF has been published in 2004 Significant deployment since then ◦ implementation experiences ◦ users’ experiences](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033101/56649c9e5503460f9495d9e3/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
(23)
“Work candidates”(not yet clear where and how)
![Page 24: Ivan Herman W3C. (2) Current RDF has been published in 2004 Significant deployment since then ◦ implementation experiences ◦ users’ experiences](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033101/56649c9e5503460f9495d9e3/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
(24)
Issues that arose:◦ httpRange-14 as a standard◦ “Cool URI-s for the Semantic Web”◦ “follow your nose principles”◦ social contracts around URI-s◦ etc.
Not clear that these should be Recommendations
Some of the issues might become part of a renewed RDF Primer
“Create standard for deployment of linked data
![Page 25: Ivan Herman W3C. (2) Current RDF has been published in 2004 Significant deployment since then ◦ implementation experiences ◦ users’ experiences](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033101/56649c9e5503460f9495d9e3/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
(25)
Clearly a major problem to be solved There is a general requirement (graph
identification) that is part of the RDF Core W3C may start a separate group on
Provenance vocabularies
Provenance
![Page 26: Ivan Herman W3C. (2) Current RDF has been published in 2004 Significant deployment since then ◦ implementation experiences ◦ users’ experiences](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033101/56649c9e5503460f9495d9e3/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
(26)
Goal: define a subset of (essentially) OWL 2 RL◦ more palatable to developers◦ can be “referenced” as an entity, not only a set of
rules Should be done, not clear where and how
◦ not clear this should be part of an RDF Core◦ would a SWIG Note be enough, or does it need a full
Recommendation status?
RDFS++/RDFS 3.0/OWLPrime
![Page 27: Ivan Herman W3C. (2) Current RDF has been published in 2004 Significant deployment since then ◦ implementation experiences ◦ users’ experiences](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033101/56649c9e5503460f9495d9e3/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
(27)
Mainly on the Linked Data Cloud owl:sameAs is widely used◦ the usage is not necessarily semantically correct◦ a vocabulary should be defined to reflect the
various usages could be very close to the relevant SKOS terms,
actually…
Some elements may be part of an updated RDF Primer
Similarity/equivalence properties
![Page 28: Ivan Herman W3C. (2) Current RDF has been published in 2004 Significant deployment since then ◦ implementation experiences ◦ users’ experiences](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033101/56649c9e5503460f9495d9e3/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
(28)
A bit like RDFa 1.1’s profile mechanism◦ a single file that collects all namespaces in one
May find its way as part of the JSON serialization◦ not explicitly out of scope, but has not been added
as a requirement either
Namespace packaging mechanism
![Page 29: Ivan Herman W3C. (2) Current RDF has been published in 2004 Significant deployment since then ◦ implementation experiences ◦ users’ experiences](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033101/56649c9e5503460f9495d9e3/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
(29)
Mainly the Web Developers’ community needs API-s
But there is already an established set of API-s in Java, Python, etc
The RDFa API work defines its own API which includes a more generic RDF API mainly for Javascript
Not clear whether a separate group would be necessary…
RDF API-s
![Page 30: Ivan Herman W3C. (2) Current RDF has been published in 2004 Significant deployment since then ◦ implementation experiences ◦ users’ experiences](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033101/56649c9e5503460f9495d9e3/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
(30)
No work planned
![Page 31: Ivan Herman W3C. (2) Current RDF has been published in 2004 Significant deployment since then ◦ implementation experiences ◦ users’ experiences](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033101/56649c9e5503460f9495d9e3/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
(31)
RDF/XML is generally disliked◦ no one wants to spend time on improving it…
New features (e.g., graph identification) may not find its way to RDF/XML
RDF/XML improvements
![Page 32: Ivan Herman W3C. (2) Current RDF has been published in 2004 Significant deployment since then ◦ implementation experiences ◦ users’ experiences](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033101/56649c9e5503460f9495d9e3/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
(32)
There is a disconnect between the formal, model-theoretic semantics of RDF(S) and applications◦ there are also theoretical inadequacies, too
But the overall feedback was: don’t touch it, deployment has learned to live with it, etc.
Redo the RDF Semantics
![Page 33: Ivan Herman W3C. (2) Current RDF has been published in 2004 Significant deployment since then ◦ implementation experiences ◦ users’ experiences](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033101/56649c9e5503460f9495d9e3/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
(33)
Bnodes as predicates, literals as subject Literals as subject has deeply divided the
community◦ some are violently against it, others ask for it◦ clearly no consensus at the moment!
Remove RDF restrictions
![Page 34: Ivan Herman W3C. (2) Current RDF has been published in 2004 Significant deployment since then ◦ implementation experiences ◦ users’ experiences](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022033101/56649c9e5503460f9495d9e3/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
(34)
W3C team should finalize the charter soon Then the W3C process kicks in
◦ AC members vote with a yea or nay◦ if the vote is positive: work can begin in early 2010
And now?