4 ms·
> The Semantic Web never caught on because it's really fucking hard to get right. No companies are investing in making it easier. I really appreciate this poin
by nescioquid 5y ago
> The Semantic Web never caught on because it's really fucking hard to get right. No companies are investing in making it easier.
I really appreciate this point. I had the opportunity to work on an exploratory project with an experienced ontologist (yes, you really need one of those, I think). The tools were fascinating (reasoners quickly became necessary) but I had the feeling that many of these tools were at a comparatively early stage of maturity.
Trying to explain to people how the system would work was a challenge as it required a primer on theory and application -- we glazed many eyes. The CTO wanted to know if we could use blockchain somehow. Another group addressed a slice of the problem with technologies already in use and that decided the matter.
- zozbot234 5y ago> reasoners quickly became necessary Ouch. Most uses of reasoners/inference are quite computationally-intensive, to the point of making "reasoning" quickly infeasible. But if you really want, you can do all this stuff in traditional databases by defining appropriate 'views' and having your application query them. You could even use custom database triggers to enable inserts/updates on views.
- hobofan 5y agoReally depends on the reasoner in use. I'd really take most current public benchmarks on reasoner performance with a grain of salt, as most implementations out there are mostly academic-grade non-production systems. E.g. Stardog does most of their reasoning via query rewriting (and also lean on some restrictions). That way you can leverage DBs to do what they are good at. If you can then on top of that build some clever caching or incremental computation, you should be fine for even pretty huge dataset sizes.