On Jun 30, 2010, at 8:59 PM, Ross Singer wrote:

On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 9:36 PM, Hugh Glaser <h...@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
Great - more crystallization of the problem.

On 01/07/2010 02:14, "Ross Singer" <rossfsin...@gmail.com> wrote:

I suppose my questions here would be:

1) What's the use case of a literal as subject statement (besides
being an academic exercise)?
I would have thought the same as a use case for a literal as object.
I want to say:
"Semantic Web Revisited" foo:isTitleOf bar:somePaper
Why should I be forced to say
bar:somePaper dcterms:hasTitle "Semantic Web Revisited"
? Seems pretty arbitrary to me.

Actually, your example seems pretty arbitrary.  The latter,
<http://example.org/foo> dcterms:title "Semantic Web Revisited" is

It is conventional *because* the RDF restriction has forced it to be written this way round. Your argument is thus circular in several ways at once.

Pat Hayes

and convention seems pretty important for the semantic
web to work right.

Just because you feel like you should do it doesn't mean you should.
RDF/XML is a pain in the butt to parse because there a million ways to
serialize it.  Your example is doubly uncompelling since bar:somePaper
dcterms:title "Semantic Web Revisited" *works* and pretty much any
agent would be able to deal with it and understand it.

I don't really care one way or the other about this topic, but I think
this needs to move beyond some theoretical inverse relationship to
make the argument.


IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes

Reply via email to