Rejection of SQL and OO as Metaphors

[dbooth-boston]

"SQL and OO are powerful, pervasive metaphors that most RDF* learners' mental models
appeal to when they're learning. Why aren't we translating trivial OO code
or trivial DB modeling in those metaphors to RDF*? . . . . RDF*'s a data format that's
conceptually simpler than SQL but which is orders of magnitude harder to learn"
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2018Nov/0229.html

*Note that RDF* in the above paragraph refers to the whole RDF ecosystem, not the RDF-star WG extension of RDF.

[KonradHoeffner]

I think this depends on the learner whether framing RDF in terms of SQL makes sense.
For an experienced developer this could be a good fit, while for a young student it could nowadays be possible that they actually learn RDF before SQL in their university and "SPARQL is like SQL for the Semantic Web" is not helping someone who doesn't know what SQL is.
Object oriented code on the other hand yes, I think Computer science students or programmers in general will learn about OO well before RDF.

[TallTed]

This paragraph is badly showing its age.

As I read it, I think the 4-year-old instances of RDF* are meant to convey all flavors of RDF, but I'll bet that today's readers see them as referring to the project which was originally called RDF*, and is now RDF-star which is substantially different from the original paper (see RDF-star CG which leads to final CG report and new RDF-star WG).

[dbooth-boston]

As I read it, I think the 4-year-old instances of RDF* are meant to convey all flavors of RDF

Correct. I've just added a note to help clarify.

[TallTed]

I might suggest a revision to your note (codefenced for your copy-and-paste convenience) --

_Note that `RDF*` in the above paragraph refers to the whole RDF ecosystem, not (only) to any or all of the [current `RDF-star WG`](https://www.w3.org/groups/wg/rdf-star), the [recently concluded `RDF-star CG`](https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/), nor the [original paper proposing `RDF*`](http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1912/paper12.pdf) from which the more recent groups evolved._

[dbooth-boston]

Thanks @TallTed , I've edited it accordingly (though shortened).