> I don't think you'll regret spending the time; RDF is a fascinating field! I love RDF. I'm using it for a project of my own, which has nothing to do with sem

> I don't think you'll regret spending the time; RDF is a fascinating field! I love RDF. I'm using it for a project of my own, which has nothing to do with semantic web. I'm not using any of the standard ontologies, or OWL, or anything like that. I just wanted an extensible, schemaless data model, because I have no idea how folks will want to correlate data with each other. Being able to hang anything off of anything is important. I'm also not processing trillions of triples for my work (if you ever look at triple stores, they like to taut how fast they can import vast troves of data). Mind, I'm no doubt reinventing some stuff that I could probably be using a standard vocabulary for, but since global interoperability is not a goal, I'm not that concerned about it. I also have some concept of structure that I'm capturing, and encoding, and I perhaps could be using something like OWL for, but this is ad hoc doing things as I go and while there may well be gems within those spaces I can leverage, I'd rather make progress on my own path at the moment than fall into those large maws of times trying to suss them out to see if I could adapt them to my project. SPARQL is an odd duck I'm still wrapping my head around (30 years of SQL warps ones point of view), but at least it exists, and I can use it.