[dynamorando]

I’m curious - have you used SOLID? Either as a developer or a consumer?

I found myself struggling with Linked Data for quite some time now, and I have struggled with the idea that perhaps part of the problem with adoption of Linked Data is existing mental interia of RMDBS or other systems.

[DrScientist]

No not used it ( at least not knowingly ).

I like the idea - kinda back to a decentralised web of peers like it was in the early days.

However the complexity of the technology is certainty off-putting - I'm not enough of an expert to tell how much of that complexity is adherence to a tech stack ( like RDF, SPARQL ) and how much is simply the complexity of the underlying problem.

I would say the guys behind it seem fairly pragmatic. As an example while the technology allows you to self host, they acknowledge that most people won't be able/want to - and are looking to enable providers as well.

I think one of the problems with the LD/RDF community is it can attract the type of person that things 'we just need a single well defined data model for the universe'.

I think trying to get one schema to rule them all is doomed to failure - for two reasons

- for ontologies to be effective all the users of that ontology have to have a shared understanding of the ontology - simple a written down definition isn't enough.

- the world can be viewed from multiple angles - even if you could agree one view, it's not going to be optimal for all use cases.

However as I said, the SOLID project doesn't appear to be falling into that trap - it appears very focused and pragmatic.

[dynamorando]

Interesting. I personally found the whole defining your schema up front to feeling like trying to construct the universe up front.

I’ve been trying to work on an alternative solution to SOLID, but I’m always double checking myself just to make sure that I’m not just simply failing to grasp the concepts.