> I am still not hearing any argument to justify the costs of literals as
> subjects.
+1
Cheers,
Michael
--
Dr. Michael Hausenblas
LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
Ireland, Europe
Tel. +353 91 495730
http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
http://sw-app.org/about.html
> From: Jeremy Carroll <[email protected]>
> Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 08:38:00 -0700
> To: Yves Raimond <[email protected]>
> Cc: Pat Hayes <[email protected]>, Toby A Inkster <[email protected]>, David Booth
> <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Dan Brickley <[email protected]>,
> Linked Data community <[email protected]>, Semantic Web community
> <[email protected]>
> Subject: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)
> Resent-From: Linked Data community <[email protected]>
> Resent-Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 15:38:42 +0000
>
>
> 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 "correct" thing to do is to allow all three node types in
> all three positions. (Well four if we take the graph name as well!)
>
> But if we make a change, all of my code base will need to be checked
> for this issue.
> This costs my company maybe $100K (very roughly)
> No one has even showed me $1K of advantage for this change.
>
> It is a no brainer not to do the fix even if it is technically correct
>
> Jeremy
>
>
