Semantic Web: RDF, OWL, SHACL und SPARQL

Complex relations in RDF

The simple subject-predicate-object data model of RDF tempts us to treat relationships and verbs as simple predicates or properties/properties.

However, this often does not do justice to reality.

For example, if we are collecting data on employment relationships or project contractors, a first approach might be:

Explaining OWL: use 'set' for 'class', it's more precise and less likely to be confused with OO classes

Today I listened to the workshop "Democratize the Knowledge Graph and Concrete Tooling Requirements" by Adam Keresztes at the 2023 Knowledge Graph Conference in NYC.

Different people there emphasized the difficulty of explaining the difference between classes and instances to non-ontologists.

Which had me reflecting on how I work with this terminology, and I found that I tend to use 'set' instead of 'class'.

Investment protection: an important advantage of RDF and SPARQL

A current customer project has once again shown me two important advantages of the W3C standards around semantic technologies and graph data:

  • Stability, in the sense of portability of data and queries
  • Choice of products between which I can exchange my data and queries
  • And thus an investment protection that proprietary graph databases do not offer

tl;dr

Why RDF? Because it protects your investment!

We use cookies on our website to support technical features that enhance your user experience.

Es werden keine Dienste zur Analyse Ihres Verhaltens genutzt, wir tracken sie nicht.