On 1 Jul 2010, at 20:47, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > >> 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: >> but is that really correct? Because bnodes can be names for literals, and so >> you really do have >> literals in subject positions.... No? > It is really correct that I have loads and loads of such code. > > This code conforms with the RDF Concepts and Abstract Syntax Recommendation > 2004
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. ? So that really you'd have to do no work at all? Just wondering.... Henry > > Jeremy >
