I use RDF like a next-generation relational database and think that RDF
could be sold to many people this way (there is possibly are larger audience
for this than for ontologies, reasoning, etc.). Especially considering how
No-SQL is currently taking off. This part needs some love and seems
On Behalf Of Nathan wrote on Friday, July 02:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jul 1, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Yves Raimond wrote:
A literal may be the object of an RDF statement, but not the subject
or the predicate.
Just to clarify, this is a purely syntactic restriction. Allowing
literals in subject
[cc's trimmed]
I'm with Jeremy here, the problem's economic not technical.
If we could introduce subjects-as-literals in a way that:
(a) doesn't invalidate any existing RDF, and
(b) doesn't permit the generation of RDF/XML that existing applications cannot
parse,
then I think there's a
Hello Ivan!
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 5:50 AM, Ivan Mikhailov
imikhai...@openlinksw.com wrote:
Hello Yves,
It's a virtuoso function surfaced as a predicate.
magic predicate was an initial moniker used at creation time.
bif:contains doesn't exist in pure triple form etc..
Why couldn't it?
Pat Hayes wrote:
Just to clarify, this is a purely syntactic restriction. Allowing
literals in subject position would require **no change at all** to the
RDF semantics.
Indeed.
And this is probably one of the reasons why several RDF-related standards
have already adopted literal subjects. Some
Yves,
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Yves Raimond yves.raim...@gmail.com wrote:
First: this is *not* a dirty hack.
Brickley bif:contains ckley is a perfectly valid thing to say.
You could, today, use data: URIs to represent literals with no change
to any RDF system.
Ian
On Fri, 2010-07-02 at 08:50 +0100, Graham Klyne wrote:
[cc's trimmed]
I'm with Jeremy here, the problem's economic not technical.
If we could introduce subjects-as-literals in a way that:
(a) doesn't invalidate any existing RDF, and
(b) doesn't permit the generation of RDF/XML that
Hi Yves,
[trimmed cc list]
On 2 Jul 2010, at 11:15, Yves Raimond wrote:
I am not arguing for each vendor to implement that. I am arguing for
removing this arbitrary limitation from the RDF spec. Also marked as
an issue since 2000:
http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-literalsubjects
On 2 Jul 2010, at 12:42, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
Hi Yves,
[trimmed cc list]
On 2 Jul 2010, at 11:15, Yves Raimond wrote:
I am not arguing for each vendor to implement that. I am arguing for
removing this arbitrary limitation from the RDF spec. Also marked as
an issue since 2000:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jul 1, 2010, at 9:42 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 3:49 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Nathan wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster
Hi Richard!
[trimmed cc list]
On 2 Jul 2010, at 11:15, Yves Raimond wrote:
I am not arguing for each vendor to implement that. I am arguing for
removing this arbitrary limitation from the RDF spec. Also marked as
an issue since 2000:
On Fri, 2010-07-02 at 12:42 +0200, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
Hi Yves,
On 2 Jul 2010, at 11:15, Yves Raimond wrote:
I am not arguing for each vendor to implement that. I am arguing for
removing this arbitrary limitation from the RDF spec. Also marked as
an issue since 2000:
Kingsley Idehen wrote:
So why: Subject-Predicate-Object (SPO) everywhere re. RDF?
O-R-O reflects what you've just described.
Like many of the RDF oddities (playing out nicely in this thread), you
have an O-R-O but everyone talks about S-P-O.
Subject has implicit meaning, it lends itself to
Michael Schneider wrote:
Kingsley Idehen wrote:
So why: Subject-Predicate-Object (SPO) everywhere re. RDF?
O-R-O reflects what you've just described.
Like many of the RDF oddities (playing out nicely in this thread), you
have an O-R-O but everyone talks about S-P-O.
Subject has implicit
Henry Story wrote:
On 2 Jul 2010, at 15:22, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
I think, the main confusion comes from the use of the term object for two
entirely different things: In the case of O-R-O, it refers to (semantic)
individuals. In the case of S-P-O, it refers to a position in a
(syntactic)
Richard Cyganiak wrote:
Hi Yves,
[trimmed cc list]
On 2 Jul 2010, at 11:15, Yves Raimond wrote:
I am not arguing for each vendor to implement that. I am arguing for
removing this arbitrary limitation from the RDF spec. Also marked as
an issue since 2000:
On Jul 2, 2010, at 6:52 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jul 1, 2010, at 9:42 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 3:49 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Nathan wrote:
Pat Hayes
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jul 2, 2010, at 6:52 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jul 1, 2010, at 9:42 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 3:49 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Nathan
[snip]
This is the second time in a few hours that a thread has degenerated
into talk of accusations and insults.
I don't care who started it. Sometimes email just isn't the best way
to communicate. If people are feeling this way about an email
discussion, it might be worth the respective
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
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Jeremy Carroll jer...@topquadrant.com wrote:
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
Dan Brickley wrote:
[snip]
This is the second time in a few hours that a thread has degenerated
into talk of accusations and insults.
I don't care who started it. Sometimes email just isn't the best way
to communicate. If people are feeling this way about an email
discussion, it might be worth
On 2010/7/1 22:42, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 3:49 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Nathan wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010
On 2010/7/1 22:35, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Yves Raimond wrote:
Hello Kingsley!
[snip]
IMHO an emphatic NO.
RDF is about constructing structured descriptions where Subjects have
Identifiers in the form of Name References (which may or many
resolve to
Structured Representations of Referents
On 30 Jun 2010, at 21:09, Pat Hayes wrote:
For example I've heard people saying that it encourages bad 'linked data'
practise by using examples like { 'London' a x:Place } - whereas I'd
immediately counter with { x:London a 'Place' }.
Surely all of the subjects as literals arguments
Yves Raimond wrote:
Hello Kingsley!
[snip]
IMHO an emphatic NO.
RDF is about constructing structured descriptions where Subjects have
Identifiers in the form of Name References (which may or many resolve to
Structured Representations of Referents carried or borne by Descriptor
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 3:49 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Nathan wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:54:20 +0100
Dan Brickley dan...@danbri.org
On 1 Jul 2010, at 16:35, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Yves Raimond wrote:
Hello Kingsley!
[snip]
IMHO an emphatic NO.
RDF is about constructing structured descriptions where Subjects have
Identifiers in the form of Name References (which may or many resolve to
Structured
Hello!
IMHO an emphatic NO.
RDF is about constructing structured descriptions where Subjects have
Identifiers in the form of Name References (which may or many resolve to
Structured Representations of Referents carried or borne by Descriptor
Docs/Resources). An Identifier != Literal.
If
Henry Story wrote:
On 1 Jul 2010, at 16:35, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Yves Raimond wrote:
Hello Kingsley!
[snip]
IMHO an emphatic NO.
RDF is about constructing structured descriptions where Subjects have
Identifiers in the form of Name References (which may or many resolve
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 5:22 PM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
Henry Story wrote:
On 1 Jul 2010, at 16:35, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Yves Raimond wrote:
Hello Kingsley!
[snip]
IMHO an emphatic NO.
RDF is about constructing structured descriptions where Subjects have
Yves Raimond wrote:
Hello!
IMHO an emphatic NO.
RDF is about constructing structured descriptions where Subjects have
Identifiers in the form of Name References (which may or many resolve to
Structured Representations of Referents carried or borne by Descriptor
Docs/Resources). An
Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Yves Raimond wrote:
Hello!
IMHO an emphatic NO.
RDF is about constructing structured descriptions where Subjects
have
Identifiers in the form of Name References (which may or many
resolve to
Structured Representations of Referents carried or borne by
Descriptor
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 5:45 PM, Henry Story henry.st...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 Jul 2010, at 18:18, Yves Raimond wrote:
In any case RDF Semantics does, I believe,
allow literals in subject position. It is just that many many syntaxes
don't allow that to be expressed,
It doesn't seem to be
On Jul 1, 2010, at 3:38 AM, Henry Story wrote:
On 30 Jun 2010, at 21:09, Pat Hayes wrote:
For example I've heard people saying that it encourages bad
'linked data' practise by using examples like { 'London' a
x:Place } - whereas I'd immediately counter with { x:London a
'Place' }.
On Jul 1, 2010, at 9:42 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 3:49 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Nathan wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jul 1, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Yves Raimond wrote:
A literal may be the object of an RDF statement, but not the subject
or the predicate.
Just to clarify, this is a purely syntactic restriction. Allowing
literals in subject position would require **no change at all** to the
On Jul 2, 2010, at 12:07 AM, Nathan wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jul 1, 2010, at 11:49 PM, Nathan wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jul 1, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Yves Raimond wrote:
A literal may be the object of an RDF statement, but not the
subject
or the predicate.
Just to clarify, this is a
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jul 2, 2010, at 12:07 AM, Nathan wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jul 1, 2010, at 11:49 PM, Nathan wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jul 1, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Yves Raimond wrote:
A literal may be the object of an RDF statement, but not the subject
or the predicate.
Just to clarify,
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:54:20 +0100
Dan Brickley dan...@danbri.org wrote:
That said, i'm sure sameAs and differentIndividual (or however it is
called) claims could probably make a mess, if added or removed...
You can create
Nathan wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:54:20 +0100
Dan Brickley dan...@danbri.org wrote:
That said, i'm sure sameAs and differentIndividual (or however it is
called) claims could probably make a mess, if added or removed...
You
On Jun 30, 2010, at 11:50 AM, Nathan wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:54:20 +0100
Dan Brickley dan...@danbri.org wrote:
That said, i'm sure sameAs and differentIndividual (or however it
is
called) claims could probably make a
On Jun 30, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Nathan wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:54:20 +0100
Dan Brickley dan...@danbri.org wrote:
That said, i'm sure sameAs and differentIndividual (or however
it is
called) claims
On 06/30/2010 09:09 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 11:50 AM, Nathan wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:54:20 +0100
Dan Brickley dan...@danbri.org wrote:
That said, i'm sure sameAs and differentIndividual (or however
On 30 June 2010 21:14, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Nathan wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:54:20 +0100
Dan Brickley dan...@danbri.org wrote:
That said, i'm sure
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 14:09 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 11:50 AM, Nathan wrote:
[ . . . ]
Surely all of the subjects as literals arguments can be countered
with 'walk round it', and further good practise could be aided by a
few simple notes on best practise for linked
Intuitively, I would expect each subject literal to have a unique identity. For
example, I would want to annotate a particular instance of abc and not all
literals abc. Wouldn't the latter treatment make literals-as-subjects less
appealing?
Re. the DL police: I use RDF like a next-generation
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
Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Nathan wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:54:20 +0100
Dan Brickley dan...@danbri.org wrote:
That said, i'm sure sameAs and differentIndividual (or however it is
called) claims could probably make a mess, if
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Nathan wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:54:20 +0100
Dan Brickley dan...@danbri.org wrote:
That said, i'm sure sameAs and differentIndividual (or however it
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 11:50 AM, Nathan wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:54:20 +0100
Dan Brickley dan...@danbri.org wrote:
That said, i'm sure sameAs and differentIndividual (or however it is
called) claims could
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 13:18:25 -0700
Jeremy Carroll jer...@topquadrant.com wrote:
Here are the reasons I voted this way:
- it will mess up RDF/XML
No it won't - it will just mean that RDF/XML is only capable of
representing a subset of RDF graphs. And guess what? That's already
the case.
--
Toby Inkster wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 13:18:25 -0700
Jeremy Carroll jer...@topquadrant.com wrote:
Here are the reasons I voted this way:
- it will mess up RDF/XML
No it won't - it will just mean that RDF/XML is only capable of
representing a subset of RDF graphs. And guess what? That's
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)?
Jeremy Carroll wrote:
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
Jirí 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
Literals in owl:sameAs axioms are not allowed in OWL (1/2) DL. owl:sameAs
can only be used to equate
On Jun 30, 2010, at 2:52 PM, David Booth wrote:
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 14:09 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 11:50 AM, Nathan wrote:
[ . . . ]
Surely all of the subjects as literals arguments can be countered
with 'walk round it', and further good practise could be aided by a
few
On Jun 30, 2010, at 3:49 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Nathan wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:54:20 +0100
Dan Brickley dan...@danbri.org wrote:
That said,
On Jun 30, 2010, at 4:25 PM, Toby Inkster wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 13:18:25 -0700
Jeremy Carroll jer...@topquadrant.com wrote:
Here are the reasons I voted this way:
- it will mess up RDF/XML
No it won't - it will just mean that RDF/XML is only capable of
representing a subset of RDF
On Jun 30, 2010, at 3:12 PM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
Intuitively, I would expect each subject literal to have a unique
identity. For example, I would want to annotate a particular
instance of abc and not all literals abc. Wouldn't the latter
treatment make literals-as-subjects less
60 matches
Mail list logo
