On 7/11/2010 4:25 AM, Dave Reynolds wrote:
Jena, which Jeremy's software is based on, *does* allow literals as
subjects internally (the Graph SPI) and the rule reasoners *do* work
with generalized triples just as most such RDF reasoners do. However, we
go to some lengths to stop the
On 7/5/2010 3:40 PM, Hugh Glaser wrote:
A particular problem in this realm has been characterised as
S-P-O v. O-R-O and I suspect that this reflects a Semantic Web/Linked Data
cultural difference,
SNIP
You see this as a problem of having a literal in the subject position.
I might equally
On 7/1/2010 8:44 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
Jeremy, your argument is perfectly sound from your company's POV, but
not from a broader perspective. Of course, any change will incur costs
by those who have based their assumptions upon no change happening
I was asking for the economic benefit of the
On 7/2/2010 12:00 PM, Dan Brickley wrote:
Or maybe we should all just take a weekend break, mull things over for
a couple of days, and start fresh on monday? That's my plan anyhow...
Yeah, maybe some of us could meet up in some sunny place and sit in an
office, maybe at Stanford - just like
I am still not hearing any argument to justify the costs of literals as
subjects
I have loads and loads of code, both open source and commercial that
assumes throughout that a node in a subject position is not a literal,
and a node in a predicate position is a URI node.
Of course, the
On 7/1/2010 10:18 AM, Yves Raimond wrote:
Or, an even simpler use-case: storing metaphones for strings in a
triple store.
OK - and why are these use cases not reasonably easily addressable using
the N-ary predicate design pattern with a two place ltieral predicate i.e.
instead of
On 1 Jul 2010, at 17:38, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
I have loads and loads of code, both open source and commercial that assumes
throughout that a node in a subject position is not a literal, and a node in a
predicate position is a URI node.
On 7/1/2010 8:46 AM, Henry Story wrote
On 7/1/2010 11:51 AM, Henry Story wrote:
So just as a matter of interest, imagine a new syntax came along that allowed
literals in
subject position, could you not write a serialiser for it that turned
123 length 3 .
Into
_:b owl:sameAs 123;
length 3.
?
I couldn't because chunks of
David Booth wrote:
I agree, but at the W3C RDF Next Steps workshop over the weekend, I was
surprised to find that there was substantial sentiment *against* having
literals as subjects. A straw poll showed that of those at the
workshop, this is how people felt about having an RDF working group
Jiří Procházka wrote:
I wonder, when using owl:sameAs or related, to name literals to be
able to say other useful thing about them in normal triples (datatype,
language, etc) does it break OWL DL
yes it does
(or any other formalism which is
base of some ontology extending RDF semantics)?
Dan Brickley wrote:
However it did not leave any footprint in the academic literature. We
might ask why. Like much of the work around W3C and tech industry
standards, the artifacts it left behind don't often show up in the
citation databases. A white paper here, a Web-based specification
there,
namespaces. There is no prohibition on using a vocabulary in
which every term is from its own namespace. The use of namespaces allows
us to use prefixes, which allows us to avoid writing cumbersome URIs too
many times.
Jeremy Carroll
TopQuadrant
[1]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-names11
12 matches
Mail list logo
