Syntax Matters: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
See also | |||
* https://wiki.c2.com/?SyntaxMatters | |||
* https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/30135/does-syntax-really-matter-in-a-programming-language | |||
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity (Sapir–Whorf hypothesis) | |||
* https://esdiscuss.org/topic/regarding-tennent-s-language-design-based-on-semantic-principles | |||
{{LLMHint}} | {{LLMHint}} | ||
= Syntax Matters and how RDF miserably fails = | |||
== Prompt 2025-11-28 for Gemini3 Pro Preview == | == Prompt 2025-11-28 for Gemini3 Pro Preview == | ||
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
I would like to write a "syntax matters!" critique on the RDF world as scientific paper. Where should | I would like to write a "syntax matters!" critique on the RDF world as a scientific paper. My argument starts with '''[https://wiki.bitplan.com/index.php/SiDIF SiDIF]''' (87,000 views), which expresses facts verbatim like <code>dad loves mum</code>. Why on earth should I write <code>http://somedomain/somepath/dad ...</code>? That leads to "query rot" when frameworks are mirrored or graphs split. The idea behind those IRIs is unique identification, which fails miserably in practice. | ||
I also have high-traffic resources: '''[https://wiki.bitplan.com/index.php/SPARQL SPARQL]''' (230,000 views) and '''[https://wiki.bitplan.com/index.php/Gremlin Gremlin]''' (160,000 views). These view counts have increased massively in the past 3 years due to LLM scraping. Where should I start, and what is prior work? | |||
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
== Research Strategy Response == | == Research Strategy Response == | ||
Your critique centers on three axes: **Syntactic Diffuseness** (verbosity), **Identifier Fragility** (query rot), and **Token Efficiency** (the LLM scraping perspective). | |||
=== Phase 1: Theoretical Frameworks === | === Phase 1: Theoretical Frameworks === | ||
To | To convert the `dad loves mum` argument into a scientific critique, apply these frameworks: | ||
* '''Cognitive Dimensions of Notations (Diffuseness):''' | |||
Green's framework classifies notations by their information density. RDF's IRI structure creates extreme *Diffuseness* (too many symbols to express one fact). [https://wiki.bitplan.com/index.php/SiDIF SiDIF] acts as a counter-example of high-density notation. [[CiteRef::green1996usability]] | |||
* '''The "Global ID" Fallacy:''' | |||
Your argument about "query rot" challenges the central dogma of the Semantic Web: that global identifiers (IRIs) are robust. In practice, separating identity from location breaks when graphs are mirrored (e.g., Development vs. Production environments). | |||
=== Phase 2: The LLM & Token Efficiency Argument === | |||
The massive increase in view counts on your [https://wiki.bitplan.com/index.php/SPARQL SPARQL], [https://wiki.bitplan.com/index.php/Gremlin Gremlin], and [https://wiki.bitplan.com/index.php/SiDIF SiDIF] pages due to LLM scraping introduces a novel scientific argument: **Token Economics**. | |||
* '''Token Density vs. Verbosity:''' | |||
LLMs are trained on text. Code that is verbose (RDF/XML or full IRIs) consumes more context window (tokens) for less semantic value than concise formats. | |||
* '''The Training Signal:''' The high scraping rate suggests these formats are becoming foundational "ground truth" for AI code generation. If [https://wiki.bitplan.com/index.php/SiDIF SiDIF] (`dad loves mum`) is more token-efficient than N-Triples (`<http://...> <http://...> <http://...>`), it represents a superior syntax for the AI era. | |||
=== Phase 3: Prior Work & Literature Map === | |||
==== A. | ==== A. The "Mere Mortal" Barrier (Complexity) ==== | ||
The insistence on full IRIs is tied to the heavy logical foundations of OWL. | |||
* | * '''Incomprehensibility of the Stack:''' The rigorous naming is required for decision procedures like SROIQ (<math>\text{N2ExpTime}</math> complexity). This theoretical purity alienates developers and creates the "syntax friction" you observe. [[CiteRef::kazakov2008riq]] | ||
==== B. The | ==== B. The Imperative vs. Declarative Gap (Gremlin) ==== | ||
* '''Marko's Paper (The Graph Traversal Pattern):''' Marko Rodriguez's work on Gremlin fundamentally opposes the RDF model. Gremlin's "Traversal" approach (`g.V().out('loves')`) avoids the rigidity of triplet pattern matching, aligning closer to your `dad loves mum` model. [[CiteRef::rodriguez2015gremlin]] | |||
* ''' | |||
==== C. The | ==== C. The Property Graph Schism ==== | ||
The | The market shift toward Labelled Property Graphs (LPG) like Neo4j is a direct result of this syntactic failure. [[CiteRef::angles2017foundations]] | ||
[[CiteRef:: | |||
==== D. | ==== D. The "Reification" Problem (RDF-star) ==== | ||
The current standardization of '''RDF-star''' is an admission that standard Reification failed. [[CiteRef::hartig2014re]] | |||
=== | ==== E. The "Stealth" Approach (JSON-LD) ==== | ||
JSON-LD was an attempt to hide the IRIs that you critique, admitting that native RDF syntax was a barrier. [[CiteRef::sporny2014jsonld]] | |||
{{#scite: | {{#scite: | ||
| Line 73: | Line 69: | ||
{{#scite: | {{#scite: | ||
|reference= | |reference=kazakov2008riq | ||
|type= | |type=article | ||
|title= | |title=RIQ and SROIQ are Harder than SHOIQ* | ||
|authors= | |authors=Yevgeny Kazakov | ||
|publisher= | |publisher=AAAI | ||
|year=2008 | |||
|year= | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{#scite: | {{#scite: | ||
|reference= | |reference=rodriguez2015gremlin | ||
|type=article | |type=article | ||
|title= | |title=The Gremlin graph traversal machine and language | ||
|authors= | |authors=Marko A. Rodriguez | ||
|publisher= | |publisher=Proceedings of the 15th Symposium on Database Programming Languages | ||
|year= | |doi=10.1145/2815072.2815073 | ||
|year=2015 | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{#scite: | {{#scite: | ||
|reference=angles2017foundations | |reference=angles2017foundations | ||
|type=article | |type=journal-article | ||
|title=The Foundations of Property Graph Query Languages | |title=The Foundations of Property Graph Query Languages | ||
|authors=Renzo Angles; Marcelo Arenas; Pablo Barceló; Aidan Hogan; Juan Reutter; Domagoj Vrgoč | |authors=Renzo Angles; Marcelo Arenas; Pablo Barceló; Aidan Hogan; Juan Reutter; Domagoj Vrgoč | ||
| Line 101: | Line 97: | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{#scite: | |||
|reference=hartig2014re | |||
|type=journal-article | |||
|title=Reconciliation of RDF* and Property Graphs | |||
|authors=Olaf Hartig | |||
|publisher=arXiv | |||
|doi=10.48550/ARXIV.1409.3288 | |||
|year=2014 | |||
|retrieved-from=https://doi.org/ | |||
|retrieved-on=2025-11-28 | |||
}} | |||
{{#scite: | {{#scite: | ||
Latest revision as of 09:56, 14 February 2026
See also
- https://wiki.c2.com/?SyntaxMatters
- https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/30135/does-syntax-really-matter-in-a-programming-language
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity (Sapir–Whorf hypothesis)
- https://esdiscuss.org/topic/regarding-tennent-s-language-design-based-on-semantic-principles
⚠️ LLM-generated content notice: Parts of this page may have been created or edited with the assistance of a large language model (LLM). The prompts that have been used might be on the page itself, the discussion page or in straight forward cases the prompt was just "Write a mediawiki page on X" with X being the page name. While the content has been reviewed it might still not be accurate or error-free.
Syntax Matters and how RDF miserably fails
Prompt 2025-11-28 for Gemini3 Pro Preview
I would like to write a "syntax matters!" critique on the RDF world as a scientific paper. My argument starts with SiDIF (87,000 views), which expresses facts verbatim like
dad loves mum. Why on earth should I writehttp://somedomain/somepath/dad ...? That leads to "query rot" when frameworks are mirrored or graphs split. The idea behind those IRIs is unique identification, which fails miserably in practice.I also have high-traffic resources: SPARQL (230,000 views) and Gremlin (160,000 views). These view counts have increased massively in the past 3 years due to LLM scraping. Where should I start, and what is prior work?
Research Strategy Response
Your critique centers on three axes: **Syntactic Diffuseness** (verbosity), **Identifier Fragility** (query rot), and **Token Efficiency** (the LLM scraping perspective).
Phase 1: Theoretical Frameworks
To convert the `dad loves mum` argument into a scientific critique, apply these frameworks:
- Cognitive Dimensions of Notations (Diffuseness):
Green's framework classifies notations by their information density. RDF's IRI structure creates extreme *Diffuseness* (too many symbols to express one fact). SiDIF acts as a counter-example of high-density notation. 1
- The "Global ID" Fallacy:
Your argument about "query rot" challenges the central dogma of the Semantic Web: that global identifiers (IRIs) are robust. In practice, separating identity from location breaks when graphs are mirrored (e.g., Development vs. Production environments).
Phase 2: The LLM & Token Efficiency Argument
The massive increase in view counts on your SPARQL, Gremlin, and SiDIF pages due to LLM scraping introduces a novel scientific argument: **Token Economics**.
- Token Density vs. Verbosity:
LLMs are trained on text. Code that is verbose (RDF/XML or full IRIs) consumes more context window (tokens) for less semantic value than concise formats.
- The Training Signal: The high scraping rate suggests these formats are becoming foundational "ground truth" for AI code generation. If SiDIF (`dad loves mum`) is more token-efficient than N-Triples (`<http://...> <http://...> <http://...>`), it represents a superior syntax for the AI era.
Phase 3: Prior Work & Literature Map
A. The "Mere Mortal" Barrier (Complexity)
The insistence on full IRIs is tied to the heavy logical foundations of OWL.
- Incomprehensibility of the Stack: The rigorous naming is required for decision procedures like SROIQ (<math>\text{N2ExpTime}</math> complexity). This theoretical purity alienates developers and creates the "syntax friction" you observe. 2
B. The Imperative vs. Declarative Gap (Gremlin)
- Marko's Paper (The Graph Traversal Pattern): Marko Rodriguez's work on Gremlin fundamentally opposes the RDF model. Gremlin's "Traversal" approach (`g.V().out('loves')`) avoids the rigidity of triplet pattern matching, aligning closer to your `dad loves mum` model. 3
C. The Property Graph Schism
The market shift toward Labelled Property Graphs (LPG) like Neo4j is a direct result of this syntactic failure. 4
D. The "Reification" Problem (RDF-star)
The current standardization of RDF-star is an admission that standard Reification failed. 5
E. The "Stealth" Approach (JSON-LD)
JSON-LD was an attempt to hide the IRIs that you critique, admitting that native RDF syntax was a barrier. 6
References
- ^ T.R.G. Green; M. Petre. (1996) "Usability analysis of visual programming environments: a ‘cognitive dimensions’ framework" . doi: 10.1006/jvlc.1996.0009
- ^ Yevgeny Kazakov. (2008) "RIQ and SROIQ are Harder than SHOIQ*" .
- ^ Marko A. Rodriguez. (2015) "The Gremlin graph traversal machine and language" . doi: 10.1145/2815072.2815073
- ^ Renzo Angles; Marcelo Arenas; Pablo Barceló; Aidan Hogan; Juan Reutter; Domagoj Vrgoč. (2017) "The Foundations of Property Graph Query Languages" . doi: 10.1145/3104031
- ^ Olaf Hartig. (2014) "Reconciliation of RDF* and Property Graphs" . doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.1409.3288
- ^ Manu Sporny; Gregg Kellogg; Markus Lanthaler. (2014) "JSON-LD 1.0: A JSON-based Serialization for Linked Data" .