Jeremy, the point is to start the process, but put it on a low burner, so that in 4-5 years time, you will be able to sell a whole new RDF+ suite to your customers with this new benefit. ;-)
On 1 Jul 2010, at 17:38, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > > 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. but is that really correct? Because bnodes can be names for literals, and so you really do have literals in subject positions.... No? > 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. I agree, it would be good to get a full list of the benefits. > > It is a no brainer not to do the fix even if it is technically correct > > Jeremy > >
