HN user

namedgraph

23 karma
Posts1
Comments52
View on HN

I use it in ETL whenever I have an XML source, then I use XSLT to lift it to RDF (either RDF/XML or TriX). I use it for the UI where I'm transforming RDF/XML to HTML. I'm also using for the interactive parts instead of Javascript (or React or Svelte etc.), but that's the interactive XSLT extension that goes beyond the standard.

XML to XML, XML to RDF, JSON to XML and XML to JSON, XML to text -- XSLT can be used for all kinds of transformations. 3.0 also supports streaming transforms, which is very useful for large input files.

XSLT is a declarative DSL made specifically for the XML data model. It does limited things such as navigating the XML tree but does them really well. It lifts the abstraction level so you can focus on the transformation. You can transform XML with bash or a general purpose language like Java, but it will never be so concise or effective.

That's just bullshit. Stop spreading FUD.

We participated in a huge RfP for a pharma company which planned RDF KG infrastructure for the next couple of years with 500 billion triple capabilities.

Biomedical, finance, defence, automotive -- all of those industries are using RDF/SPARQL. Just because your problems are not big or complex enough doesn't mean this tech is not used. It takes a certain organization size for Knowledge Graphs to make sense and pay off, that's why most industry users are Fortune 500-level companies.

You do realize this is an open-source project? And you are comparing with a product by Neo4J who got $300M VC investment?

The enterprise Knowledge Graphs (yes, it's the same SemWeb tech stack in principle) in Fortune 500 sized companies have in-house platforms that present the graph to the end-users, with entity browsers, analytics, dashboards, structured content etc. LinkedDataHub is an attempt to bootstrap an open-source, standards-driven version of that.

LinkedDataHub was extracted from the common code from a number of Linked Data projects that we have done in different domains.

It can be used as a framework but it's a standalone application as well, because it provides the default built-in ontologies as well UI for Linked Data and SPARQL consumption.

Disclaimer: I'm the main developer.

Yes, let us see how you do data interchange without global identifiers. Such as URIs, which RDF has built-in natively and property graphs do not.

You're right about bioinformatics, but lets do a quick check on http://sparql.club/ on who else is looking for RDF/SPARQL specialists. Oh look: automotive industry, finance, publishing, medical, research etc.

Yes RDF is in its own niche -- data interchange. And that's where merge matters, when you for example need to merge protein data with genes and drugs etc. A bunch of pharma companies are using RDF Knowledge Graphs for that purpose. The need for data interchange comes with a certain company size, and that point RDF becomes the solution because there are no real alternatives.

I'm not talking about replacing JSON with RDF. Don't need data interchange -- don't use RDF. RDF is both at a different level of abstraction and solving problems of different scope.

Research projects? Research is something coming out of academia, as you know. These are open-source projects with active developer communities. Jena has long been under Apache, RDF4J is now under Eclipse Foundation.

Can you for once answer why large companies in the industry are using RDF/SPARQL as of today if it's so "dead"? Here's a list: http://sparql.club

Relational model, XML/JSON etc. simply do not have a generic merge operation defined the same way as RDF does. This can be proved with pen and paper.

And you still haven't addressed my second point about widespread industry use. It seems that SemWeb haters/sceptics always try to avoid this, why could that be?..

RDF is absolutely about triples and the converse graph form! The serialization formats are immaterial, orthogonal. The fact that you think it's about any particular format makes it obvious that you don't get it at all.

We wasted 20 years by trying to replace one form of brackets with the other (XML vs. JSON). WHATWG and the browser vendors are responsible for this. Just like for the fact that we still don't have a machine-readable web. FAANG crawls the structured schema.org metadata like nobody else can and profits from it, and the rest of use are left with the HTML5 and Javascript crap.