I wonder if RDF could actually be used to implement "trigger warnings". List triggering tags in your browser, and then the triggering content can be tagged and blocked by your browser. No censorship involved, just responsible disclosure.
Update of the RDF and SPARQL (RDF star) families of specifications
11–20 of 58 posts
Re: Update of the RDF and SPARQL (RDF star) families of specifications
#12In the nicest possible way, and from a position of ignorance of the "Semantic Web": is anyone actually doing anything with these technologies outside of academia?
The U.S. Open Data catalog [1] has all the metadata and even some data as Linked Data, same with the European Open Data catalog [2] [1]: https://data.gov/ [2]: https://data.europa.eu/
To extend on this.
A lot of this is based on DCAT[1] (which is a RDF vocabulary) and for Europe the extension DCAT-AP[2] which is then further extended by country specific standards.
[1] https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat-3/
[2] https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/semantic-interoperabi...
[3] e.g. https://www.dcat-ap.de/ or https://docs.dataportal.se/dcat/en/
Re: Update of the RDF and SPARQL (RDF star) families of specifications
#13I wonder if RDF could actually be used to implement "trigger warnings". List triggering tags in your browser, and then the triggering content can be tagged and blocked by your browser. No censorship involved, just responsible disclosure.
You’re seeking a technical solution to a social problem. There have been a number of attempts at very similar things; they always fail because practically no one is interested in putting in the effort required, if they even know about it.
Re: Update of the RDF and SPARQL (RDF star) families of specifications
#14I am extremely glad to see RDF being worked on and improved. It's an extremely powerful, general data model. It gets a bad rap because if its unfortunate association with the XML syntax and the fact that many of the reference implementations were written at the peak of overdesigned OO cruft. This type of semantically precise yet flexible data model is going to become increasingly important as a bridge between highly…
RDF is not dependent on XML as a syntax. There's a text-based syntax in common use (Turtle), as well as a separate one based on JSON (JSON-LD).
Re: Update of the RDF and SPARQL (RDF star) families of specifications
#15https://w3c.github.io/rdf-primer/spec/
This primer is a really good introduction to understand RDF and SPARQL. Both seem extremely powerful.
Re: Update of the RDF and SPARQL (RDF star) families of specifications
#16In the nicest possible way, and from a position of ignorance of the "Semantic Web": is anyone actually doing anything with these technologies outside of academia?
Wikidata (a Wikimedia Foundation project) is an RDF dataset with a SPARQL querying service available at https://query.wikidata.org/
Re: Update of the RDF and SPARQL (RDF star) families of specifications
#17I am extremely glad to see RDF being worked on and improved. It's an extremely powerful, general data model. It gets a bad rap because if its unfortunate association with the XML syntax and the fact that many of the reference implementations were written at the peak of overdesigned OO cruft. This type of semantically precise yet flexible data model is going to become increasingly important as a bridge between highly…
RDF is not dependent on XML as a syntax. There's a text-based syntax in common use (Turtle), as well as a separate one based on JSON (JSON-LD).
right, but they have a close association as OP says, and RDF is wrongly dismissed for similar reasons as XML (too complex, too much ceremony, too difficult, not enough value)
Re: Update of the RDF and SPARQL (RDF star) families of specifications
#18In the nicest possible way, and from a position of ignorance of the "Semantic Web": is anyone actually doing anything with these technologies outside of academia?
It's not nothing, even did a consulting gig years ago. Also, some non-profits such as Wikidata are putting it to good use I guess. But not everything benefits from representation as graph; for example, statistical data. Then there's always the unanswered question who's going to publish data without economical benefit when the money is, at best, in attention/eyeballs, or selling individual queries where backend tech isn't material or even visible. Do we even want to expose more machine-readable information in the age of ChatGPT?
TBL's vision for knowledge graphs is even older than the web. But should it be W3C's job to invent new tech? Does W3C's track record, legal and financial standing invite further standardization work? Their HTML and SVG charters have basically ceased working and W3C's last (final?) HTML recommendation is based on WHATWG HTML Review Draft January, 2020 [1].
Re: Update of the RDF and SPARQL (RDF star) families of specifications
#19In the nicest possible way, and from a position of ignorance of the "Semantic Web": is anyone actually doing anything with these technologies outside of academia?
If you’re pying a botique consultancy fat stacks to fix your megaCo’s absolute hairball data integration, the probability of RDF approaches 1 as price goes to ∞.
Trivial (as in ‘cat graphx graphy’) merging of complex data graphs is just too powerful.
Re: Update of the RDF and SPARQL (RDF star) families of specifications
#20In the nicest possible way, and from a position of ignorance of the "Semantic Web": is anyone actually doing anything with these technologies outside of academia?
I'm using it in a personal project. I wanted something extensible, and ad hoc, and RDF is certainly that. But it's also typed, which is nice. I can add my own types (I may do that, not sure yet).
I am not well versed in the other RDF technologies. I haven't paid any attention to ontologies, or OWL or any of that stuff. I just use raw RDF, and defined my own vocabularies for everything, including structure. For example, I have my own type property. RDF also has one, but I just made my own. I have my own structure system to mostly bring order to how things are displayed, or created, etc. I am pretty much as far from the semantic web as you can get.
Since everything is "just a triple" it makes it easy to share data. So, it'll be straight forward to import and export artifacts out of my system and share them with others.
And I get SPARQL "for free", so even after new data structures are added, they're still queried like the first class ones the tool already knows about. SPARQL is pretty neat.
At the moment, I have a mostly complete RDF CRUD tool, with some first class interface prototypes (by first class I mean I have forms and UI specifically for those data types, rather than a generic resource form), and really like working with it. My DB has about 3.5M triples in it.