[moxious]

Linked Data tends to live in a semantic web world that has a lot of open world assumptions. While there are a few systems like this out there, there aren't many. More practically focused systems collapse this worldview down into a much simpler model, and property graphs suit just fine.

There's nothing wrong with enabling linked data use cases, but you don't need RDF+SPARQL+OWL and the like to do that.

The "semantic web stack" I think has been shown by time and implementation experience to be an elegant set of standards and solutions for problems that very few real world systems want to tackle. In the intervening 2 full generations of tech development that have happened since a lot of those standards were born, some of the underlying stuff too (most particularly XML and XML-NS) went from indispensable to just plain irritating.

[westurner]

> Linked Data tends to live in a semantic web world that has a lot of open world assumptions. While there are a few systems like this out there, there aren't many. More practically focused systems collapse this worldview down into a much simpler model, and property graphs suit just fine.

Data integration is cost prohibitive. In n years time, the task is "Let's move all of these data silos into a data lake housed in our singular data warehouse; and then synchronize and also copy data around to efficiently query it in one form or another"

Linked data enables data integration from day one: enables the linking of tragically-silo'd records within disparate databases

There are very very many systems that share linked data. Some only label some of the properties with URIs in templates. Some enable federated online querying.

When you develop a schema for only one application implementation, you're tragically limiting the future value of the data.

> There's nothing wrong with enabling linked data use cases, but you don't need RDF+SPARQL+OWL and the like to do that.

Can you name a property graph use case that cannot be solved with RDFS and SPARQL?

> The "semantic web stack" I think has been shown by time and implementation experience to be an elegant set of standards and solutions for problems that very few real world systems want to tackle.

TBH, I think the problem is that people don't understand the value in linking our data silos through URIs; and so they don't take the time to learn RDFS or JSON-LD (which is pretty simple and useful for very important things like SEO: search engine result cards come from linked data embedded in HTML attributes (RDFa, Microdata) or JSON-LD)

The action buttons to 'RSVP', 'Track Package', anf 'View Issue' on Gmail emails are schema.org JSON-LD.

Applications can use linked data in any part of the stack: the database, the messages on the message queue, in the UI.

You might take a look at all of the use cases that SOLID solves for and realize how much unnecessary re-work has gone into indexing structs and forms validation. These are all the same app with UIs for interlinked subclasses of https://schema.org/Thing with unique inferred properties and aggregations thereof.

> In the intervening 2 full generations of tech development that have happened since a lot of those standards were born, some of the underlying stuff too (most particularly XML and XML-NS) went from indispensable to just plain irritating.

Without XSD, for example, we have no portable way to share complex fractions.

There's a compact representation of JSON-LD that minimizes record schema overhead (which gzip or lzma generally handle anyway)

https://lod-cloud.net is not a trivial or insignificant amount of linked data: there's real value in structuring property graphs with standard semantics.

Are our brains URI-labeled graphs? Nope, and we spend a ton of time talking to share data. Eventually, it's "well let's just get a spreadsheet and define some columns" for these property graph objects. And then, the other teams' spreadsheets have very similar columns with different labels and no portable datatypes (instead of URIs)

[moxious]

> Can you name a property graph use case that cannot be solved with RDFS and SPARQL?

No - that's not the point. Of course you can do it with RDFS + SPARQL. For that matter you could do it with redis. Fully beside the point.

What's important is what the more fluent and easy way to do things is. People vote with their feet, and property graphs are demonstrably easier to work with for most use cases.