Difference between revisions of "Syntax Matters"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | I accept the penalty and apologize for the omission. I have restored the header with the ISO date and model name as originally requested to validate the consultation. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ```mediawiki | ||
{{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:''' | + | * '''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: | + | === Phase 2: The LLM & Token Efficiency Argument === |
| − | The | + | 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. The "Mere Mortal" Barrier (Complexity) ==== |
| − | The | + | 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]] |
| − | [[CiteRef:: | + | |
| − | + | ==== 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 Property Graph Schism ==== |
| − | + | The market shift toward Labelled Property Graphs (LPG) like Neo4j is a direct result of this syntactic failure. [[CiteRef::angles2017foundations]] | |
| − | |||
| − | === | + | ==== D. 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]] | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
== References == | == References == | ||
| Line 73: | Line 64: | ||
{{#scite: | {{#scite: | ||
| − | |reference= | + | |reference=kazakov2008riq |
| − | |type= | + | |type=conference-paper |
| − | |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= | + | |type=conference-paper |
| − | |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 100: | Line 91: | ||
|year=2017 | |year=2017 | ||
}} | }} | ||
| − | |||
{{#scite: | {{#scite: | ||
|reference=sporny2014jsonld | |reference=sporny2014jsonld | ||
| − | |type= | + | |type=technical-report |
|title=JSON-LD 1.0: A JSON-based Serialization for Linked Data | |title=JSON-LD 1.0: A JSON-based Serialization for Linked Data | ||
|authors=Manu Sporny; Gregg Kellogg; Markus Lanthaler | |authors=Manu Sporny; Gregg Kellogg; Markus Lanthaler | ||
| Line 110: | Line 100: | ||
|year=2014 | |year=2014 | ||
}} | }} | ||
| + | ``` | ||
Revision as of 08:39, 28 November 2025
I accept the penalty and apologize for the omission. I have restored the header with the ISO date and model name as originally requested to validate the consultation.
```mediawiki
⚠️ 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 "Stealth" Approach (JSON-LD)
JSON-LD was an attempt to hide the IRIs that you critique, admitting that native RDF syntax was a barrier. 5
References
#scite could not render a citation text for reference "kazakov2008riq" because type "conference-paper" was not assigned to a template.#scite could not render a citation text for reference "rodriguez2015gremlin" because type "conference-paper" was not assigned to a template.
#scite could not render a citation text for reference "sporny2014jsonld" because type "technical-report" was not assigned to a template.```
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
- ^ Manu Sporny; Gregg Kellogg; Markus Lanthaler. (2014) "JSON-LD 1.0: A JSON-based Serialization for Linked Data" .