Herman, I. (Ivan)

English

CWI's Institutional Repository

Graph Data: RDF, Property Graphs (Results of a Workshop…) W3C Track, The Web Conference 2019 May 15, 2019 San Francisco, CA, USA Ivan Herman, W3C/CWI 1These slides are on the Web:• https://www.w3.org/2019/Talks/W3C-track-IH/Presentation.pdf 2The facts• W3C Workshop on “Web Standardization for Graph Data”:• Berlin, 4-6 March 2019• ≈100 participants• one keynote (from Amazon), ≈20 full presentations, and a series of short presentations• lots of discussions, panels• program, submissions, etc, are available via: https://www.w3.org/Data/events/data-ws-2019/ 3Why having this workshop? 4Issues leading to the Workshop 1.• Increasing importance of graph-based data and databases in general (witness the large attendance of the workshop on Monday!)• The concept of Property Graphs has come to the fore (alongside RDF)• there is a need to find a way to see how these technologies coexist• discussions are ongoing on the pro-s and cons of RDF vs. PG• PG is part of the graph data landscape for good! • ISO is also present in this area• there is a group combining PG and SQL 5Issues leading to the Workshop 1.• SQL could be extended to do everything for graphs• SPARQL could be extended to do everything for PG and tables• A property graph GQL that handles tables and graphs could do everything SQL can do 6In theory…Source:	presentation	of	Alastair	Green,		https://www.w3.org/Data/events/data-ws-2019/assets/slides/AlastairGreen.pdfIssues leading to the Workshop 1.• That would lead to paralysis, or endless wars• Data communities have very deep social and product roots, and large to huge user bases• Like humans, they can’t get personality transplants… 7In practice…Source:	presentation	of	Alastair	Green,		https://www.w3.org/Data/events/data-ws-2019/assets/slides/AlastairGreen.pdfIssues leading to the Workshop 2.• There are also major concerns with RDF• general acceptance is still relatively slow (although there are great successes)• there are many minor (or major…) technical issues with RDF & Co. that need housekeeping(“RDF”, in the presentation, is a shorthand for full RDF suite, i.e., RDF, RDFS, OWL, SPARQL, SHACL, etc.) 8 9A few words about Property GraphsProperty Graphs• Framework for representing data and metadata with a graph of nodes and links• both nodes and links may have additional name/value pairs • otherwise referred to as “properties”• nodes are “just” nodes, not necessarily URL-s• Link annotations are very useful to assign temporal, spacial, provenance, etc, informationSource:	neo4j	text	on	PG:	https://neo4j.com/developer/graph-database/#property-graph 10Property graphs have a real success• Some non-SQL database vendors (e.g., Neo4j) base their business on this• There are a also number of smaller (including open source) implementations (e.g, TinkerPop)• Major database providers (Oracle, Amazon’s Neptune,…) incorporate PG as well as RDF stores• but they may live in parallel silos…• There are a number of query languages (declarative and imperative), but not one winner (yet)• there is work in the ISO/SQL community to incorporate PG, and define query languages 11Property Graphs versus RDF: similarities• Both represent directed graphs as a basic data structure• Both have associated graph-oriented query languages• In practice, both are used as “graph stores”, accessible via HTTP and/or various API-s 12Property Graphs versus RDF: differences• RDF has an emphasis on OWA, and is rooted in the Web via URL-s. Not the case for PG:• a PG node is oblivious to what it “contains”: can be a URL, can be a literal• in RDF parlance, “a Literal can also be a subject”• Easy to add simple key/value pairs to node, which are not considered to be “in the graph”• PG-s includes the possibility to add simple key/value pairs to “relationships” (i.e., RDF predicates)  13Main difference between PG and RDF  14Source:	presentation	of	David	Booth,		http://tinyurl.com/EasierBerlinThese are properties on the link “instance”!:acme a :Company :name "Acme, Inc":HAS_CEO :start_date "2008-01-20"^^xsd:date:amy a :Employee :name "Amy Peters" PG can be represented in RDF• For example:• using reification• some sort of an intermediate node (usually BNode) to represent the link• use a named graph with a single triple• extend RDF to include, somehow, a triple as an entity (e.g., “RDF*”) 15Source:	presentation	of	David	Booth,		http://tinyurl.com/EasierBerlin:acme a :Company :name "Acme, Inc":HAS_CEO :start_date "2008-01-20"^^xsd:date:amy a :Employee :name "Amy Peters" PG can be represented in RDF• All these representations do exist in real products• All have pros and cons• overall… they are all messy from an RDF point of view 😒• There is no generally accepted way of doing that• i.e., none of those solutions are interoperable…• databases may offer both models, but little interchange among them… 16Source:	presentation	of	David	Booth,		http://tinyurl.com/EasierBerlin:acme a :Company :name "Acme, Inc":HAS_CEO :start_date "2008-01-20"^^xsd:date:amy a :Employee :name "Amy Peters" Why are PG-s interesting for the RDF community?• They are around on the market…• They represent, in some ways, a level of abstraction that is easier to understand:• by collapsing the “properties” into some sort of labels (i.e., “metadata”), the real, “core” aspect of a graph becomes more visible• helps in concentrating on the “essence” of a dataset without being lost in details (date, provenance, tags, etc.)• adopting a “PG style” would be actually helpful to make RDF more understandable!“…historically, property graphs were somewhat of a reaction to the complexity of RDF. A complex standard will not be accepted by the developer community” (Juan Sequeda) 17Which leads us to… issues with RDF 18 19Source:	presentation	of	David	Booth,		http://tinyurl.com/EasierBerlin• The value of RDF may be well proven, but… 20Source:	presentation	of	David	Booth,		http://tinyurl.com/EasierBerlinPhD  Recommended• The value of RDF may be well proven, but…• too hard for average development teams!The “EasierRDF” initiative• Email discussion initiated by David Booth• his original mail in November ’18• a separate Github Repository has also been set up• The guiding principles in the startup mail: 21• The goal is to make RDF—or some RDF-based successor—easy enough for average developers (middle 33%), who are new to RDF, to be consistently successful.• Solutions may involve anything in the RDF ecosystem: standards, tools, guidance, etc.  All options are on the table.• Backward compatibility is highly desirable, but less important than ease of use.Over 600 messages in a few weeks!  22Source:	presentation	of	David	Booth,		http://tinyurl.com/EasierBerlinEasierRDF github site: 50+ issues  23Source:	presentation	of	David	Booth,		http://tinyurl.com/EasierBerlinRDF issues at the Workshop• The “EasierRDF” discussion was one of the main inputs• There were also a number of other sessions: rules, temporal and spatial data, streaming, outreach, queries…• Obviously, the workshop could only try to enumerate the main issues• There were, roughly, three types of issues that came up:1. technical issues: deficiencies, missing features, etc…2. “outreach” issues3. tooling  24A rough list of top RDF issues from the Workshop (caveat: there is no systematic review yet, this is my list…) 25Technical issues• Lack of n-ary relations• Blank nodes • do we need them, should we restrict their usage, leave it as they are?• Simplified reification of some sort (RDF*/SPARQL*)• A simple reasoning system• OWL is usually considered to be way too complex for the average developers• n3 based? SPARQL based? something else?• RDF for stream processing 26Technical issues (cont.)• Representation of time in RDF• Clearer semantics of data sets• Security, integrity, provenance, etc., of data• related: missing standard for the canonicalization/signature of graphs• Better internationalization of Literals (base directions, hints for translations, pronunciations, …)• Text search• RDF model extensions?• literals as subjects? blank nodes as predicates?• Relationship to Property Graphs 27Non-technical issues• Lack of beginner level good tutorials• no equivalence to, say, MDN• no clear “entry” points for outsiders• Too much jargon that are unrelated to Web Developers’ experiences• No (not yet?) proper and standard integration with Javascript• there is a W3C Community Group working on this, though…• Moribundity of tools, registries, lots of abandonware• A general question: is RDF too low (“assembly”) level, is there a need for a higher level model to make it more usable? 28Results of the Workshop 29Results of the Workshop: many ideas came up for future activities• Standards work around PG• an abstract (standard) model for Property Graphs☨• standard mapping between Property Graphs and RDF• standard mapping between Property Graphs and Relational Data☨• W3C Community Group for Graph Query Language (GQL)☨• RDF improvements• solve all the technical and outreach problems in RDF 😀 30Final	work	probably	not	at	W3C☨But… this can lead to chaos• It would lead to lots of unstructured, unrelated work, not necessarily in the right priority order• Final decision is to set up a W3C Business Group to coordinate further work 31W3C Business Group on Graph Data• Look at the bigger story around data: data is strategic asset for companies. What are the features and mappings that are of importance?• Derive a prioritized list of technical issues to be solved to fulfill those needs • Spin off task forces, community groups, etc, to look at the technical issues that are of major  importance• Liaise with other organizations (e.g., ISO) for the activities that are to be done elsewhere• Look at outreach possibilities in general 32Watch this space, interesting things will happen! 33Some links• Workshop home page:• https://www.w3.org/Data/events/data-ws-2019/• All submissions• https://www.w3.org/Data/events/data-ws-2019/papers.html• Workshop agenda with links to slides• https://www.w3.org/Data/events/data-ws-2019/schedule.html• Workshop report• https://www.w3.org/Data/events/data-ws-2019/report.html• These slides:• https://www.w3.org/2019/Talks/W3C-track-IH/Presentation.pdf 34Thank you for your attention 35

Graph Data: RDF, Property Graphs

Herman, Ivan

NARCIS 

https://ir.cwi.nl/pub/29099/Presentation.pdf

Graph Data: RDF, Property Graphs

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

CWI's Institutional Repository

NARCIS