On 2010/7/1 22:35, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Yves Raimond wrote:
Hello Kingsley!
[snip]
IMHO an emphatic NO.
RDF is about constructing structured descriptions where Subjects have
Identifiers in the form of Name References (which may or many
resolve to
Structured Representations of Referents
How about internationalization? If the subject is a literal, how would
translations be associated?
On Jul 1, 2010, at 5:14 , Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 8:14 PM, Ross Singer wrote:
I suppose my questions here would be:
1) What's the use case of a literal as subject statement
for graph naming, the
economic cost of also doing this becomes quite small.)
There's also a school of opposition here which is about aligning RDF
subjects with Object-Oriented Programming's objects. For that school,
literals as subjects could be a real problem. But I'm not sure anyone
takes that school
On 30 Jun 2010, at 21:09, Pat Hayes wrote:
For example I've heard people saying that it encourages bad 'linked data'
practise by using examples like { 'London' a x:Place } - whereas I'd
immediately counter with { x:London a 'Place' }.
Surely all of the subjects as literals arguments
Hello everybody,
I think the main issues are already discussed. Hence, here are some
summarized notes of my thoughts:
1. We shouldn't propagate that a user (always a machine or human beeing)
has to go this way and not the other one. Leaving this decision by the
user, leads to more user
+1 to the points below.
I think one should point out that rdf semantics allows them, and that in an
open world they
just can't be excluded.
In N3 literals as subjects are often used. And the cwm repository is a good
place to look
for examples
@prefix log: http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/log
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
Yves Raimond wrote:
Hello Kingsley!
[snip]
IMHO an emphatic NO.
RDF is about constructing structured descriptions where Subjects have
Identifiers in the form of Name References (which may or many resolve to
Structured Representations of Referents carried or borne by Descriptor
that messes can't happen when all
you are doing is describing structures in an open-world setting.
But I think the cure is to stop thinking that possible-messes are
a problem to be solved. So, there is dung in the road. Walk round
it.
Could we also apply that to the 'subjects as literals
On 1 Jul 2010, at 16:35, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Yves Raimond wrote:
Hello Kingsley!
[snip]
IMHO an emphatic NO.
RDF is about constructing structured descriptions where Subjects have
Identifiers in the form of Name References (which may or many resolve to
Structured
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
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
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
Hi,
I just want to throw my 2 cents in this discussion. I posted a comment in
October 2004 related to Smart Literalproposal in Jena Discussion Group.
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/jena-dev/message/11581
Best regards
Stephane Fellah
smartRealm LLC
RE getting a full list of the benefits, surely if it's being
discussed here, Literals as Subjects must be *somebody's* Real(tm)
Problem and the benefits are inherent in its solution?
And if it isn't, um, why is it being discussed here? ;)
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Henry Story henry.st
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
Hello!
IMHO an emphatic NO.
RDF is about constructing structured descriptions where Subjects have
Identifiers in the form of Name References (which may or many resolve to
Structured Representations of Referents carried or borne by Descriptor
Docs/Resources). An Identifier != Literal.
If
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Jeremy Carroll jer...@topquadrant.com 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
Henry Story wrote:
On 1 Jul 2010, at 16:35, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Yves Raimond wrote:
Hello Kingsley!
[snip]
IMHO an emphatic NO.
RDF is about constructing structured descriptions where Subjects have
Identifiers in the form of Name References (which may or many resolve
position are currently not
of any interest to us, we simply discard them during a filtering phase.
Kind regards,
Robert
On 01/07/10 17:05, John Erickson wrote:
RE getting a full list of the benefits, surely if it's being
discussed here, Literals as Subjects must be *somebody's* Real(tm)
Problem
at creation time.
bif:contains doesn't exist in pure triple form etc..
Why couldn't it? For example, you may want to express exactly what
triple lead you to give a particular result, and within that scope you
may end up having to write: Brickley bif:contains ckley in RDF.
Forbidding literals
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Sandro Hawke san...@w3.org wrote:
On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 17:10 +0100, Nathan wrote:
In all honesty, if this doesn't happen, I personally will have no choice
but to move to N3 for the bulk of things, and hope for other
serializations of N3 to come along.
RIF
Sandro Hawke wrote:
On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 17:10 +0100, Nathan wrote:
In all honesty, if this doesn't happen, I personally will have no choice
but to move to N3 for the bulk of things, and hope for other
serializations of N3 to come along.
RIF (which became a W3C Recommendation last week) is
Yves Raimond wrote:
Hello!
IMHO an emphatic NO.
RDF is about constructing structured descriptions where Subjects have
Identifiers in the form of Name References (which may or many resolve to
Structured Representations of Referents carried or borne by Descriptor
Docs/Resources). An
Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Yves Raimond wrote:
Hello!
IMHO an emphatic NO.
RDF is about constructing structured descriptions where Subjects
have
Identifiers in the form of Name References (which may or many
resolve to
Structured Representations of Referents carried or borne by
Descriptor
as [1].
No?
It just seems that [2] is a more concise way of writing things, and
it is conceptually cleaner.
I definitely agree...
For my thesis work, I had to store quite a lot of signal processing
computations in RDF, and had to hack a few triple stores (mainly SWI's
one) to handle literals
- :(
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
predicate had
been triggered once, you would just directly match against the cached
version in further queries. Hence, processing time-- and $++ :)
Cheers,
y
On 1 Jul 2010 16:37, Jeremy Carroll jer...@topquadrant.com wrote:
I am still not hearing any argument to justify the costs of literals
Or, an even simpler use-case: storing metaphones for strings in a triple
store.
y
On 1 Jul 2010 18:15, Yves Raimond yves.raim...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Jeremy!
One example on the top of my head. You have a 'magic predicate' such as
Virtuoso bif:contains, but slightly more expansive than that
Hi all
Re-naming the subject to try and get out of the general noise :)
I'm been following this noisy thread with amazement. I've no clear position
on the issue, just take the opportunity to attract the attention of the
community to the work of Gerard de Melo at Lexvo.org [1] which has been
(cc: list trimmed to LOD list.)
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
Cut long story short.
[-cut-]
We have an EAV graph model, URIs, triples and a variety of data
representation mechanisms. N3 is one of those, and its basically the
foundation that
On 7/1/2010 10:18 AM, Yves Raimond wrote:
Or, an even simpler use-case: storing metaphones for strings in a
triple store.
OK - and why are these use cases not reasonably easily addressable using
the N-ary predicate design pattern with a two place ltieral predicate i.e.
instead of
Hi Dan, Kingsley
Happy to see you expose clearly those things that have been also in the
corner of my mind since Kingsley started to hammer the EAV drum a while ago.
I've been also in training and introduction to RDF insisted on the fact that
RDF was somehow just an avatar of the old paradigm
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
On Jul 1, 2010, at 10:12 AM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
3. Dates represented as character strings in some known date format
other than XSD can be asserted to be the same as a 'real' date by
writing things like
01-02-1481
Dan Brickley wrote:
(cc: list trimmed to LOD list.)
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
Cut long story short.
[-cut-]
We have an EAV graph model, URIs, triples and a variety of data
representation mechanisms. N3 is one of those, and its
On 7/1/10 2:51 PM, Henry Story wrote:
...
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
Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/
On 1 Jul 2010, at 21:03, Tim Finin wrote:
On 7/1/10 2:51 PM, Henry Story wrote:
...
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
On 07/01/2010 09:11 PM, Henry Story wrote:
Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/
On 1 Jul 2010, at 21:03, Tim Finin wrote:
On 7/1/10 2:51 PM, Henry Story wrote:
...
So just as a matter of interest, imagine a new syntax came along that
allowed literals in
subject position, could
On 7/1/2010 11:51 AM, Henry Story wrote:
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.
?
I couldn't because chunks of
and for future implementations and future
developments of the standards.
As Sandro said, RIF is using triples with literals as subjects, as
Robert Fuller said (in the LOD list), reasoners are internally inferring
triples with literals in subject position, and other use cases (more or
less convincing
are
starting to implement and for future implementations and future
developments of the standards.
As Sandro said, RIF is using triples with literals as subjects, as
Robert Fuller said (in the LOD list), reasoners are internally inferring
triples with literals in subject position, and other use cases
Dan Brickley wrote:
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
The sequence went something like this.
TimBL Design Issues Note. and SPARQL emergence. Before that, RDF was simply
in the dark ages.
It's only simple if you weren't there :)
You
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 11:35 PM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
The sequence went something like this.
TimBL Design Issues Note. and SPARQL emergence. Before that, RDF was
simply
in the dark ages.
It's only simple if you weren't there :)
You mean you didn't see me lurking
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
snip/
Something else that keeps coming up, a subset of owl always comes in to
conversations, obviously owl:sameAs - there was a proposal from one Jim
Hendler [1] at a RDF workshop thing to perhaps do something about moving
these
Dan Brickley wrote:
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 11:35 PM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
The sequence went something like this.
TimBL Design Issues Note. and SPARQL emergence. Before that, RDF was
simply
in the dark ages.
It's only simple if you weren't there :)
On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 13:05:54 -0400
Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
W3C only officially acknowledges RDF/XML as Markup Language for RDF
Data Model.
I hear this time and time again, but it is not true anymore.
XHTML+RDFa 1.0 became a W3C Recommendation in October 2008. It has the
Toby Inkster wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 13:05:54 -0400
Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
W3C only officially acknowledges RDF/XML as Markup Language for RDF
Data Model.
I hear this time and time again, but it is not true anymore.
XHTML+RDFa 1.0 became a W3C
' }.
Surely all of the subjects as literals arguments can be countered
with 'walk round it', and further good practise could be aided by
a few simple notes on best practise for linked data etc.
I wholly agree. Allowing literals in subject position in RDF is a
no-brainer. (BTW, it would also
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
it.
Could we also apply that to the 'subjects as literals' general
discussion that's going on then?
For example I've heard people saying that it encourages bad
'linked data' practise by using examples like { 'London' a
x:Place } - whereas I'd immediately counter with { x:London a
'Place
On Jul 1, 2010, at 2:03 PM, Tim Finin wrote:
On 7/1/10 2:51 PM, Henry Story wrote:
...
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;
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jul 1, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Yves Raimond wrote:
A literal may be the object of an RDF statement, but not the subject
or the predicate.
Just to clarify, this is a purely syntactic restriction. Allowing
literals in subject position would require **no change at all** to the
Hey, guys. It is perfectly fine to use OWL properties in RDF. The RDF
specs actually encourage this kind of semantic borrowing, it was
always part of the RDF design to have this happen. So no need to have
a version of owl:sameAs in the RDFS namespace. Just use the OWL one.
Pat
On Jul 1,
Hi Pat,
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
Hey, guys. It is perfectly fine to use OWL properties in RDF. The RDF specs
actually encourage this kind of semantic borrowing, it was always part of
the RDF design to have this happen. So no need to have a version of
Paul Gearon wrote:
Hi Pat,
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
Hey, guys. It is perfectly fine to use OWL properties in RDF. The RDF specs
actually encourage this kind of semantic borrowing, it was always part of
the RDF design to have this happen. So no need to
On Jul 2, 2010, at 12:07 AM, Nathan wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jul 1, 2010, at 11:49 PM, Nathan wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jul 1, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Yves Raimond wrote:
A literal may be the object of an RDF statement, but not the
subject
or the predicate.
Just to clarify, this is a
On Jul 2, 2010, at 12:29 AM, Paul Gearon wrote:
Hi Pat,
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
Hey, guys. It is perfectly fine to use OWL properties in RDF. The
RDF specs
actually encourage this kind of semantic borrowing, it was always
part of
the RDF design to
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jul 2, 2010, at 12:07 AM, Nathan wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jul 1, 2010, at 11:49 PM, Nathan wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jul 1, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Yves Raimond wrote:
A literal may be the object of an RDF statement, but not the subject
or the predicate.
Just to clarify,
that possible-messes are a problem to be solved. So,
there is dung in the road. Walk round it.
Could we also apply that to the 'subjects as literals' general
discussion that's going on then?
For example I've heard people saying that it encourages bad 'linked
data' practise by using examples
is to stop thinking that possible-messes are a problem to be
solved. So, there is dung in the road. Walk round it.
Could we also apply that to the 'subjects as literals' general
discussion that's going on then?
For example I've heard people saying that it encourages bad 'linked
data' practise
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 14:30 -0400, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Nathan wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
[ . . . ]
Surely all of the subjects as literals arguments can be countered with
'walk round it', and further good practise could be aided by a few
simple notes on best practise for linked data etc
. But I
think the cure is to stop thinking that possible-messes are a
problem to be solved. So, there is dung in the road. Walk round it.
Could we also apply that to the 'subjects as literals' general
discussion that's going on then?
For example I've heard people saying that it encourages bad
in an open-world setting.
But I think the cure is to stop thinking that possible-messes are
a problem to be solved. So, there is dung in the road. Walk round
it.
Could we also apply that to the 'subjects as literals' general
discussion that's going on then?
For example I've heard people
is describing structures in an open-world setting. But I think
the cure is to stop thinking that possible-messes are a problem to be
solved. So, there is dung in the road. Walk round it.
Could we also apply that to the 'subjects as literals' general
discussion that's going on then?
For example
happen when all you are doing is describing
structures in an open-world setting. But I think the cure is to stop
thinking that possible-messes are a problem to be solved. So, there is dung
in the road. Walk round it.
Could we also apply that to the 'subjects as literals' general discussion
David Booth wrote:
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 14:30 -0400, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Nathan wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
[ . . . ]
Surely all of the subjects as literals arguments can be countered with
'walk round it', and further good practise could be aided by a few
simple notes
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 14:09 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 11:50 AM, Nathan wrote:
[ . . . ]
Surely all of the subjects as literals arguments can be countered
with 'walk round it', and further good practise could be aided by a
few simple notes on best practise for linked
Intuitively, I would expect each subject literal to have a unique identity. For
example, I would want to annotate a particular instance of abc and not all
literals abc. Wouldn't the latter treatment make literals-as-subjects less
appealing?
Re. the DL police: I use RDF like a next-generation
David Booth wrote:
I agree, but at the W3C RDF Next Steps workshop over the weekend, I was
surprised to find that there was substantial sentiment *against* having
literals as subjects. A straw poll showed that of those at the
workshop, this is how people felt about having an RDF working group
On 30/06/2010 19:55, David Booth da...@dbooth.org wrote:
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 14:30 -0400, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Nathan wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
[ . . . ]
Surely all of the subjects as literals arguments can be countered with
'walk round it', and further good practise could be aided
think
the cure is to stop thinking that possible-messes are a problem to be
solved. So, there is dung in the road. Walk round it.
Could we also apply that to the 'subjects as literals' general
discussion that's going on then?
For example I've heard people saying that it encourages bad
structures in an open-world setting. But I
think the cure is to stop thinking that possible-messes are a
problem to be solved. So, there is dung in the road. Walk round it.
Could we also apply that to the 'subjects as literals' general
discussion that's going on then?
For example I've heard
I have to add my 2 cents here.
However, if you see some specific harm in permitting statements about
literals, please tell us what that harm would be.
The specific harm that I would see is that statements would be made about
literals given some particular context of that literal, rather than
setting. But I think
the cure is to stop thinking that possible-messes are a problem to be
solved. So, there is dung in the road. Walk round it.
Could we also apply that to the 'subjects as literals' general
discussion that's going on then?
For example I've heard people saying
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 14:54:47 -0600
Robert Sanderson azarot...@gmail.com wrote:
London dcterms:isPartOf England
That is true only for the particular London which is the capital of
England, not London, Texas, London, Ontario or London in Kiribati.
Consider:
London dcterms:isPartOf
Good post - gets to my (mis?)understanding of what is the problem.
On 30/06/2010 21:54, Robert Sanderson azarot...@gmail.com wrote:
I have to add my 2 cents here.
However, if you see some specific harm in permitting statements about
literals, please tell us what that harm would be.
The
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 13:18:25 -0700
Jeremy Carroll jer...@topquadrant.com wrote:
Here are the reasons I voted this way:
- it will mess up RDF/XML
No it won't - it will just mean that RDF/XML is only capable of
representing a subset of RDF graphs. And guess what? That's already
the case.
--
Toby Inkster wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 13:18:25 -0700
Jeremy Carroll jer...@topquadrant.com wrote:
Here are the reasons I voted this way:
- it will mess up RDF/XML
No it won't - it will just mean that RDF/XML is only capable of
representing a subset of RDF graphs. And guess what? That's
Jiří Procházka wrote:
I wonder, when using owl:sameAs or related, to name literals to be
able to say other useful thing about them in normal triples (datatype,
language, etc) does it break OWL DL
yes it does
(or any other formalism which is
base of some ontology extending RDF semantics)?
Jeremy Carroll wrote:
Jiří Procházka wrote:
I wonder, when using owl:sameAs or related, to name literals to be
able to say other useful thing about them in normal triples (datatype,
language, etc) does it break OWL DL
yes it does
(or any other formalism which is
base of some ontology
Jirí Procházka wrote:
I wonder, when using owl:sameAs or related, to name literals to be
able to say other useful thing about them in normal triples (datatype,
language, etc) does it break OWL DL
Literals in owl:sameAs axioms are not allowed in OWL (1/2) DL. owl:sameAs
can only be used to equate
I suppose my questions here would be:
1) What's the use case of a literal as subject statement (besides
being an academic exercise)?
2) Does literal as subject make sense in linked data (I ask mainly
from a follow your nose perspective) if blank nodes are considered
controversial?
Question #2
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
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
and convention seems pretty important for the semantic
web to work right.
So what is the argument for the convention?
And what is the thing that is wrong if I do it the other way?
That is, tell me what does not work right if I have literals as subjects.
Just because you feel like you should do
On Jun 30, 2010, at 2:31 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
David Booth wrote:
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 14:30 -0400, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Nathan wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
[ . . . ]
Surely all of the subjects as literals arguments can be countered
with 'walk round it', and further good practise
On Jun 30, 2010, at 2:52 PM, David Booth wrote:
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 14:09 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 11:50 AM, Nathan wrote:
[ . . . ]
Surely all of the subjects as literals arguments can be countered
with 'walk round it', and further good practise could be aided by a
few
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
can't happen when all
you are doing is describing structures in an open-world setting.
But I think the cure is to stop thinking that possible-messes
are a problem to be solved. So, there is dung in the road. Walk
round it.
Could we also apply that to the 'subjects as literals' general
On Jun 30, 2010, at 4:25 PM, Toby Inkster wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 13:18:25 -0700
Jeremy Carroll jer...@topquadrant.com wrote:
Here are the reasons I voted this way:
- it will mess up RDF/XML
No it won't - it will just mean that RDF/XML is only capable of
representing a subset of RDF
On Jun 30, 2010, at 8:14 PM, Ross Singer 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)?
A few off the top of my head.
1. Titles of books, music and other works might have properties such
as the
On Jun 30, 2010, at 3:12 PM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
Intuitively, I would expect each subject literal to have a unique
identity. For example, I would want to annotate a particular
instance of abc and not all literals abc. Wouldn't the latter
treatment make literals-as-subjects less
101 - 193 of 193 matches
Mail list logo
