On Jul 1, 2010, at 5:34 AM, Steve Harris wrote:
On 2010-07-01, at 03:20, Hugh Glaser wrote:
In fact, a question I would like to ask, but suspect that noone who
can
answer it is still reading this thread ( :-) ):
For those who implement RDF stores, do you have to do something
special to
reject RDF that has literals as subject?
In my defence, I'm not reading this thread, but someone pointed me
at it :)
Yes, and no. The engine will reject any literals in the subject
position, the index can't represent that. It's a source of
significant optimisations, and we would have to do a /lot/ of
engineering work to allow them.
To be brief: I don't care if there are usecases for literals in the
subject position. It you could rewind time 10 years I might like
them in there, but we've invested millions of pounds in engineering
RDF stores conforming to RDF 2004. I can't, and won't throw that
work away for some relatively obscure benefits.
That is fine. Nobody mandates that your (or anyone else's) software
must be able to handle all cases of RDF. But to impose an irrational
limitation on a standard just because someone has spent a lot of money
is a very bad way to make progress, IMO. Although, I believe that
there are still people using COBOL, so you may have a point.
Pat Hayes
- Steve
--
Steve Harris, Garlik Limited
1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
+44 20 8439 8203 http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey,
KT10 9AD
------------------------------------------------------------
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
