[anon1253]

RDF and semantic web used to be my goto's for this, as I believe many of the core ideas are still valid and often overlooked and sometimes even poorly re-implemented. Which says something.

However, lately I've come to like llama.cpp and friends, yes it's not ChatGTP miracle whatever but how often do you /actually/ need that? Despite its tremendous popularity, it still seems like something more people should know about. For me, I've had great fun with running LLMs locally and experiencing their different "flavors" from a more "phenomenological" (what is it like to use them) perspective rather than a technological one.

[whartung]

I’m doing a personal project using RDF. Not semantic web. Not OWL. Just “raw” RDF. And I really like it.

It’s perfect (so far) for my purposes of an extensible data model.

I’m sure others have augmented applications with “generic” data types (like properties and such). You always walk this fine line that if you fall to far you find you’re writing a database on top of a database.

We’ve also in the past fallen into that hole when building a DB schema that we stumble into what we coined the “absurd normal form” or, also colloquially, the “thing-thing” table that relates everything to everything.

Well, RDF is the thing-thing table, and it just embraces it. And for my project it’s a lot of fun. I have structured types, with specialized forms and screens. But, if desired, the user can jump into adding relations to anything. It’s essentially an RDF authoring environment with templates and custom logic to make entities. And in the end they can always dive into SPARQL to find whatever they want.

It’s not intended to work with zillions of data items, it’s just a desktop tool. I always found it interesting early on that the primary metric for triple stores was how fast they could ingest data, I guess nobody actually queried on anything.

Anyway, it’s fun and freeing to work with.