Open world semantics can’t catch fabrication
Usually it’s not a question, but asking for confirmation or to determine whether I am ‘one of those’. Here is the honest answer: I approve evidence-based decisions and pragmatic approaches. If it works for a particular use-case (including the budget, team expertise, timeline, technology), I will suggest a customer to go for it. I have no particular ‘faith’ in RDF, LPGs, LLMs, platform or company. I see business and innovation, not ideology.
That said, there are interesting efforts to generate ontologies. The ‘open-ontologies’ project is an AI-native ontology engine, a Rust MCP server with tools for building, validating, querying, and reasoning over RDF/OWL ontologies. I love the “Single binary, no JVM” punch.
The most interesting bit is not so much the project itself as the fact that from this you can see (in benchmarks) that: - open-world SHACL checks well-formedness, not completeness - zero focus nodes checks nothing, but it reports success - closed-world vocabulary checking is the missing primitive most knowledge augmented validation stacks don’t have. Rephrased differently, open-world semantics can’t catch fabrication. If your graph RAG pipeline validates LLM-extracted triples with plain SHACL and calls that governance, it isn’t.
Open Ontologies: https://github.com/fabio-rovai/open-ontologies