lyxsus

Why not? It may be stupid, but I'm buying it if material feels right to my skin.

Is Hamas and Iran yours?

UNRWA is compromised as hell, ofc it must go, so it's a pretty good use case for ethical ads usage. Definitely not a reason to enforce an additional censorship.

  Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
  Remote: Yes
  Willing to relocate: Depends
  Technologies: JavaScript/TypeScript, NodeJS, React, Graphl, Relay, Apollo, Nextjs, Python, Postgres, Mongodb, Couchdb, Dynamodb and etc and etc. AWS/GCP. RDF/OWL/RDFS, langchain/langgraph.
  Résumé/CV: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1m4A_XFaPKFqUky2n3WdGsFpXWuALTPd2/view
  Email: [email protected]

Hi, my name is Sergei, 20 years in software development. I like a challenge and working with interesting and new technologies.

This is incredible. I really want it to take off.

omg. ok, adopting some F features is an interesting idea. but why are they trying to make that thing with syntax happen?

tbh, tailwind feels like the worst thing that happened to frontend dev since coffee script.

> semantic web forcing everything into a single schema

I don't think "forcing" is the right word here, I think the right one would be "expects it to converge under practical incentives". That's a more gentle statement that reflects the fact, that it doesn't have to for SW tech to work.

Also, the term "schema" is a bit off, bc there's really no such thing in there. You can have the same graph described differently using different ontologies at the same moment without changing underlying data model, accessible via the same interface. It's a very different approach.

> never the way computers or humans structure data in order to work with it

If you haven't mentioned that you had an experience, I would say you confuse different layers of technology, because graph data model is a natural representation of many complex problems. But because you have, can I ask you to clarify what you mean here?

> Academia sells the straight jacked of the semantic web as a life long free lunch at an all-you-can eat-buffet

I disagree, bc I in fact think that academia doesn't sell shit, and that's the problem. There's no clear marketing proposal and I don't think they really bother or equipped to make it. There's a lack of human-readable specs and docs, it's insane how much time you need to invest in this topic even just to be able estimate whenever it's a reasonable to consider using SW in a first place. Also, lack of conceptual framework, "walkthroughs", tools, outdated information, incorrect information drops survival chance of a SW-based project by at least x100. But it can really shine in some use-cases, that unfortunately have little to do with the "web" itself.

Oh, I would like to see a look on your face when just in about 100-200 years from now it will be mature enough for a "web scale".

Understood, thank you.

Yes, that's not solvable with just OWL (though it might help a little) or any other popular reasoners I know. There're papers, proposals and experimental implementations for generating probability-based inferences, but nothing one can just take and use, but there're tons of interesting ideas on how to represent that kind of data in RDF or reason about.

I think the correct solution in SW context would be to add a custom reasoner to the stack.

so if it tries to have a unified ontology that's why it's destined to fail, but if it's designed to working with many small ontologies… that's why it will fail! lol, but you can't have it both ways.

In SW, the "semantic" part is subjective to an interpreter. You can have different data sources, partially mapped using owl to the ontology that an interpreter (your program) understands. That allows you to integrate new data sources independently from the program if they use a known ontology seamlessly or create a mapping of a set of concepts into a known ontology (which you would have do anyway in other approach). So in theory, data consumption capabilities (and reasoning) grows as your data sources evolve.

> If what you describe is the semantic web, the Semantic Web is "JSON", and solved.

It has nothing to do with JSON, JSON-LD, XML, Turtle, N3, rdfa, microdata and etc.. RDF is a data model, but those are serialisation formats. That's another interesting point, because half of the people talk only about formats and not the full stack. That's not a reasonable discussion.

> which certainly doesn't match what everyone else says it is

oh, I know it and it's upsetting.

That's a valid point, but I'm not sure, the following problem has a technical solution:

> Clear indicators the owl author didn't know the domain

There're a lot of wrong perspectives on the topic in this thread, but this one I like the most. When someone starts to talk about "agreeing on a single schema/ontology" it's a solid indicator that that someone needs to get back to rtfm (which I agree a bit too cryptic).

The point here is that in semantic web there're supposed to be lots and lots of different ontologies/schemas by design, often describing the same data. SW spec stack has many well-separated layers. To address that problem, an OWL/RDFS is created.

Isn’t it similar to linear types in haskell?

We’re not, but your point is still valid.