joel sachs wrote:
Wasn't this part of the summer's argument regarding literals as
rdf:subjects , i.e.
.. and that ones easy,
If { a rel b } infers { b is rel of a }, and b can be a literal in the
first statement, then b must also be a literal in the second statement.
Whether or not a
On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 08:45 +0200, Henry Story wrote:
On 8 Jul 2010, at 20:30, David Booth wrote:
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 11:03 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jul 6, 2010, at 9:23 PM, David Booth wrote:
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 20:45 +0200, Henry Story wrote:
[ . . . ]
foaf:knows a
* allow literals as
subjects internally (the Graph SPI) and the rule reasoners *do* work
with generalized triples just as most such RDF reasoners do. However, we
go to some lengths to stop the generalized triples escaping. So the lack
of subjects as triples in the exchange syntax or the publicly
On 7/11/2010 4:25 AM, Dave Reynolds wrote:
Jena, which Jeremy's software is based on, *does* allow literals as
subjects internally (the Graph SPI) and the rule reasoners *do* work
with generalized triples just as most such RDF reasoners do. However, we
go to some lengths to stop
On 8 Jul 2010, at 20:30, David Booth wrote:
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 11:03 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jul 6, 2010, at 9:23 PM, David Booth wrote:
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 20:45 +0200, Henry Story wrote:
[ . . . ]
foaf:knows a rdf:Property .
Well we can dereference foaf:knows to find out what
On Jul 6, 2010, at 4:02 PM, Nathan wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
However, before I lose any more of my SW friends, let me say at
once that I am NOT arguing for this change to RDF.
so after hundreds of emails, I have to ask - what (the hell) defines
RDF?
Well, the current specs do. And they
On Jul 6, 2010, at 9:23 PM, David Booth wrote:
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 20:45 +0200, Henry Story wrote:
[ . . . ]
foaf:knows a rdf:Property .
Well we can dereference foaf:knows to find out what it means. This is
the canonical way to find it's meaning, and is the initial
procedure we
should
On Jul 6, 2010, at 9:51 PM, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
On 2010-07-05, Pat Hayes wrote:
This objection strikes me as completely wrong-headed. Of course
literals are machine processable.
What precisely does Sampo as a plain literal mean to a computer?
Do give me the fullest semantics you can.
(which does not yet
exist as I write this).
We could think of this as a FAQ response, where the Questions are
something like:
Why can't I use Literals in the subject position in RDF?
For me, the only answer I know to this question is:
You can't use literals as subjects because the spec says
On 7 Jul 2010, at 04:23, David Booth wrote:
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 20:45 +0200, Henry Story wrote:
[ . . . ]
foaf:knows a rdf:Property .
Well we can dereference foaf:knows to find out what it means. This is
the canonical way to find it's meaning, and is the initial procedure we
should
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Danny Ayers danny.ay...@gmail.com wrote:
I've been studiously avoiding this rat king of a thread, but just on
this suggestion:
On 2 July 2010 11:16, Reto Bachmann-Gmuer reto.bachm...@trialox.org
wrote:
...
Serialization formats could support
Jo :nameOf
On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 17:43:17 -0500
Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
Well, nobody is suggesting allowing literals as predicates (although
in fact the RDF semantics would easily extend to this usage, if
required, and the analogous structures are allowed, and do have
genuine use cases, in
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 12:40 AM, Hugh Glaser h...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote:
Hi Sampo.
I venture in again...
I have much enjoyed the interchanges, and they have illuminated a number of
cultural differences for me, which have helped me understand why some people
have disagree with things that seem
I've been studiously avoiding this rat king of a thread, but just on
this suggestion:
On 2 July 2010 11:16, Reto Bachmann-Gmuer reto.bachm...@trialox.org wrote:
...
Serialization formats could support
Jo :nameOf :Jo
as a shortcut for
[ owl:sameAs Jo; :nameOf :Jo]
and a store could
+1
On 06/07/10 09:23, Danny Ayers wrote:
I've been studiously avoiding this rat king of a thread, but just on
this suggestion:
On 2 July 2010 11:16, Reto Bachmann-Gmuerreto.bachm...@trialox.org wrote:
...
Serialization formats could support
Jo :nameOf :Jo
as a shortcut for
[ owl:sameAs
On 6 Jul 2010, at 09:19, Dan Brickley wrote:
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 12:40 AM, Hugh Glaser h...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote:
Hi Sampo.
I venture in again...
I have much enjoyed the interchanges, and they have illuminated a number of
cultural differences for me, which have helped me understand why
Danny Ayers wrote:
I've been studiously avoiding this rat king of a thread, but just on
this suggestion:
On 2 July 2010 11:16, Reto Bachmann-Gmuer reto.bachm...@trialox.org wrote:
...
Serialization formats could support
Jo :nameOf :Jo
as a shortcut for
[ owl:sameAs Jo; :nameOf :Jo]
and a
Toby Inkster:
On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 17:43:17 -0500
Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
Well, nobody is suggesting allowing literals as predicates (although
in fact the RDF semantics would easily extend to this usage, if
required, and the analogous structures are allowed, and do have
genuine use
Toby Inkster wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 14:03:19 +0200
Michael Schneider schn...@fzi.de wrote:
So, if
:s lit :o .
must not have a semantic meaning, what about
lit rdf:type rdf:Property .
? As, according to what you say above, you are willing to allow for
literals in subject
After 7 days of discussion, are there any volunteers to implement this
proposal? Or you specify the wish and I should implement it (and
Kingsley should pay) for an unclear purpose? Sorry, no.
I should remind one more time: without two scheduled implementations
right now and two complete
Ivan Mikhailov wrote:
After 7 days of discussion, are there any volunteers to implement this
proposal? Or you specify the wish and I should implement it (and
Kingsley should pay) for an unclear purpose? Sorry, no.
I should remind one more time: without two scheduled implementations
right now
On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 16:30:06 +0200
Michael Schneider schn...@fzi.de wrote:
What do you mean by false statement?
False in the same sense that this is false:
http://danbri.org/foaf.rdf#danbri
foaf:name Barry Chuckle .
Whether it is provably false by an automated agent is
On 6 Jul 2010, at 14:03, Michael Schneider wrote:
Toby Inkster:
On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 17:43:17 -0500
Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
Well, nobody is suggesting allowing literals as predicates (although
in fact the RDF semantics would easily extend to this usage, if
required, and the
to implement tools which allow literals as
subjects, but there are already implementations out there.
As an example, take Ivan Herman's OWL 2 RL reasoner [1]. You can put
triples with literals as subject, and it will reason with them.
Here in DERI, we also have prototypes processing generalised triples
I'd like to apologize in advance for being sarcastic, especially since I
have really nothing against Henry... ;)
Le 06/07/2010 19:45, Henry Story a écrit :
This would be possible to say. The problem is that there would be no
way on earth that anyone could come to an agreement as to what kind
On Jul 6, 2010, at 2:05 AM, Toby Inkster wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 17:43:17 -0500
Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
Well, nobody is suggesting allowing literals as predicates (although
in fact the RDF semantics would easily extend to this usage, if
required, and the analogous structures are
Subject: Re: Subjects as Literals
Ivan, all,
Le 06/07/2010 18:00, Ivan Mikhailov a écrit :
After 7 days of discussion, are there any volunteers to implement
this
proposal? Or you specify the wish and I should implement it (and
Kingsley should pay) for an unclear purpose? Sorry, no.
Not only
Pat Hayes wrote:
However, before I lose any more of my SW friends, let me say at once
that I am NOT arguing for this change to RDF.
so after hundreds of emails, I have to ask - what (the hell) defines RDF?
I've read that 'The RDF Semantics as stated works fine with triples
which have any
Hello!
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
However, before I lose any more of my SW friends, let me say at once that
I am NOT arguing for this change to RDF.
so after hundreds of emails, I have to ask - what (the hell) defines RDF?
I've read
On Jul 6, 2010, at 1:45 PM, Henry Story wrote:
On 6 Jul 2010, at 14:03, Michael Schneider wrote:
Toby Inkster:
On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 17:43:17 -0500
Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
Well, nobody is suggesting allowing literals as predicates
(although
in fact the RDF semantics would easily
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 11:17 PM, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
[...]
This is
the canonical way to find it's meaning, and is the initial procedure we
should use to arbitrate between competing understandings of its meaning.
Whoo, I doubt if that idea is going to fly. I sincerely hope not.
So to clarify a bit:
A serialisation is just a way to write down an RDF document in a
computer. A serialisation of RDF must respect the abstract RDF syntax,
which forbids literals in subject position. If the serialisation allows
literals as subject, it is not a serialisation of RDF but it
Thanks for the clarification Antione,
I'll take one of those generalised rdf's to go when available, can I pre
order?
Best,
Nathan
Antoine Zimmermann wrote:
So to clarify a bit:
A serialisation is just a way to write down an RDF document in a
computer. A serialisation of RDF must respect
Nathan wrote:
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 11:02 PM
To: Pat Hayes
Cc: Toby Inkster; Linked Data community; Semantic Web
Subject: Re: Subjects as Literals
Pat Hayes wrote:
However, before I lose any more of my SW friends, let me say at once
that I am NOT arguing for this change to RDF.
so
On 6 Jul 2010, at 21:57, Antoine Zimmermann wrote:
I'd like to apologize in advance for being sarcastic, especially since I have
really nothing against Henry... ;)
Le 06/07/2010 19:45, Henry Story a écrit :
This would be possible to say. The problem is that there would be no
way on
On 06/07/2010 09:44, Henry Story henry.st...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 Jul 2010, at 09:19, Dan Brickley wrote:
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 12:40 AM, Hugh Glaser h...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote:
Hi Sampo.
I venture in again...
I have much enjoyed the interchanges, and they have illuminated a number
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 20:45 +0200, Henry Story wrote:
[ . . . ]
foaf:knows a rdf:Property .
Well we can dereference foaf:knows to find out what it means. This is
the canonical way to find it's meaning, and is the initial procedure we
should use to arbitrate between competing understandings
On 7/5/2010 3:40 PM, Hugh Glaser wrote:
A particular problem in this realm has been characterised as
S-P-O v. O-R-O and I suspect that this reflects a Semantic Web/Linked Data
cultural difference,
SNIP
You see this as a problem of having a literal in the subject position.
I might equally
On 2010-07-05, Pat Hayes wrote:
This objection strikes me as completely wrong-headed. Of course
literals are machine processable.
What precisely does Sampo as a plain literal mean to a computer? Do
give me the fullest semantics you can. As in, is it the Finnish Sampo as
in me, my neighbour,
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 22:23 -0400, David Booth wrote:
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 20:45 +0200, Henry Story wrote:
[ . . . ]
foaf:knows a rdf:Property .
Well we can dereference foaf:knows to find out what it means. This is
the canonical way to find it's meaning, and is the initial procedure
?
and maybe:
What would anyone want to use literals as subjects?
What would it mean to use a literal as a predicate?
Hoping someone will feel inspired to tie this up with a nice bow,
-- Sandro
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 23:40 +0200, Michael Schneider wrote:
Nathan wrote:
Sent: Tuesday
Antoine, all,
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 20:54 +0100, Antoine Zimmermann wrote:
Not only there are volunteers to implement tools which allow literals as
subjects, but there are already implementations out there.
As an example, take Ivan Herman's OWL 2 RL reasoner [1]. You can put
triples
On 6 July 2010 13:34, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
Danny Ayers wrote:
:Jo rdfs:value Jo
together with
:Jo rdf:type rdfs:Literal
?
1: is there and rdfs:value? (rdf:value)
My mistake, it is rdf:value
2: I would *love* to see rdf:value with a usable tight definition that
everybody
I greatly respect Jeremy's thoughts, and they may be spot-on in this
case, but I urge the community to be cautious about how much weight to
give this kind of pragmatic economics-driven argument generally as
the semantic technology industry grows.
Virtually every organization has -- should have!
users?
Andy
(Disclaimer: I'm sure some email somewhere makes the same point. But.)
On 01/07/2010 4:38 PM, 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
On 2010-06-30, Hugh Glaser wrote:
RDF permits anyone to say anything about anything . . . except a
literal if it is the subject of the property you want to use for the
description.
The way I see it, the main reason for this restriction is that the data
is supposed to be machine processable.
I use RDF like a next-generation relational database and think that RDF
could be sold to many people this way (there is possibly are larger audience
for this than for ontologies, reasoning, etc.). Especially considering how
No-SQL is currently taking off. This part needs some love and seems
Hi Sampo.
I venture in again...
I have much enjoyed the interchanges, and they have illuminated a number of
cultural differences for me, which have helped me understand why some people
have disagree with things that seem clear to me.
A particular problem in this realm has been characterised as
Not wanting to keep beating this particular drum, but some things just
have to be responded to.
On Jul 5, 2010, at 1:36 PM, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
On 2010-06-30, Hugh Glaser wrote:
RDF permits anyone to say anything about anything . . . except a
literal if it is the subject of the property
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.
But this is not an equivalent translation in RDF(S).
The
On Behalf Of Nathan wrote on Friday, July 02:
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
On 7/1/2010 8:44 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
Jeremy, your argument is perfectly sound from your company's POV, but
not from a broader perspective. Of course, any change will incur costs
by those who have based their assumptions upon no change happening
I was asking for the economic benefit of the
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
Jeremy, your argument is perfectly sound from your company's POV, but not
from a broader perspective. Of course, any change will incur costs by those
who have based their assumptions upon no change happening. Your company took
a
Ian Davis wrote:
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
Jeremy, your argument is perfectly sound from your company's POV, but not
from a broader perspective. Of course, any change will incur costs by those
who have based their assumptions upon no change happening. Your
Nathan wrote:
Ian Davis wrote:
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
Jeremy, your argument is perfectly sound from your company's POV, but
not
from a broader perspective. Of course, any change will incur costs by
those
who have based their assumptions upon no change
[cc's trimmed]
I'm with Jeremy here, the problem's economic not technical.
If we could introduce subjects-as-literals in a way that:
(a) doesn't invalidate any existing RDF, and
(b) doesn't permit the generation of RDF/XML that existing applications cannot
parse,
then I think there's
On 01.07.2010 22:44:48, Pat Hayes wrote:
Jeremy, your argument is perfectly sound from your company's POV, but
not from a broader perspective. Of course, any change will incur costs
Well, I think the broader perspective that the RDF workshop
failed to consider is exactly companies' costs and
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 as subjects makes this statement impossible to
express, however that's a very sensible
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 4:20 AM, Hugh Glaser h...@ecs.soton.ac.uk 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
Ian,
On 7/2/2010 3:39 AM, Ian Davis wrote:
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Pat Hayespha...@ihmc.us wrote:
Jeremy, your argument is perfectly sound from your company's POV, but not
from a broader perspective. Of course, any change will incur costs by those
who have based their assumptions
Pat Hayes wrote:
Just to clarify, this is a purely syntactic restriction. Allowing
literals in subject position would require **no change at all** to the
RDF semantics.
Indeed.
And this is probably one of the reasons why several RDF-related standards
have already adopted literal subjects. Some
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Patrick Durusau patr...@durusau.net wrote:
I make this point in another post this morning but is your argument that
investment by vendors =
I think I just answered it there, before reading this message. Let me
know if not!
Ian
Ian
Yves,
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Yves Raimond yves.raim...@gmail.com wrote:
First: this is *not* a dirty hack.
Brickley bif:contains ckley is a perfectly valid thing to say.
You could, today, use data: URIs to represent literals with no change
to any RDF system.
Ian
On Fri, 2010-07-02 at 08:50 +0100, Graham Klyne wrote:
[cc's trimmed]
I'm with Jeremy here, the problem's economic not technical.
If we could introduce subjects-as-literals in a way that:
(a) doesn't invalidate any existing RDF, and
(b) doesn't permit the generation of RDF/XML
Pat,
On 7/1/2010 11:14 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
snip
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
On 2 Jul 2010, at 09:39, Ian Davis wrote:
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
Jeremy, your argument is perfectly sound from your company's POV, but not
from a broader perspective. Of course, any change will incur costs by those
who have based their assumptions
Ian,
On 7/2/2010 5:27 AM, Ian Davis wrote:
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Patrick Durusaupatr...@durusau.net wrote:
I make this point in another post this morning but is your argument that
investment by vendors =
I think I just answered it there, before reading this message.
Pat Hayes wrote:
It is also important to distinguish changes which actually harm your
code, and changes which simply make it less complete. Allowing literal
subjects will not invalidate your engines in any way: it will simply
mean that there will be some RDF out there which they may be unable to
On 2 Jul 2010, at 11:57, Patrick Durusau wrote:
On 7/2/2010 5:27 AM, Ian Davis wrote:
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Patrick Durusaupatr...@durusau.net wrote:
I make this point in another post this morning but is your argument that
investment by vendors =
I think I just
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 10:38 AM, Henry Story henry.st...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 Jul 2010, at 09:39, Ian Davis wrote:
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
Jeremy, your argument is perfectly sound from your company's POV, but not
from a broader perspective. Of course,
The demand that W3C modify the specs to allow literals as subjects
should be rejected on a simple principle: Those who demand that
change, including yourself, have failed to put their money where their
mouth is. Where is the alternative specification that documents the
syntactic
Henry,
On 7/2/2010 6:03 AM, Henry Story wrote:
On 2 Jul 2010, at 11:57, Patrick Durusau wrote:
On 7/2/2010 5:27 AM, Ian Davis wrote:
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Patrick Durusaupatr...@durusau.net wrote:
I make this point in another post this morning but is your
Hi Richard,
Such
work can not be realistically done within W3C for obvious reasons. It
has to be done outside W3C by the community.
I believe that's what the normal/standard web developers (I think
Henry Story called them Web Monkeys ;) ) do already, or?
Cheers,
Bob
Hi Benjamin,
On 2 Jul 2010, at 11:01, Benjamin Nowack wrote:
Our problem is not lack of features (native literal subjects? c'mon!).
It is identifying the individual user stories in our broad community
and marketing respective solution bundles. The RDFa and LOD folks
have demonstrated that this
://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-literalsubjects
The demand that W3C modify the specs to allow literals as subjects should be
rejected on a simple principle: Those who demand that change, including
yourself, have failed to put their money where their mouth is. Where
On 2 Jul 2010, at 12:49, Patrick Durusau wrote:
Henry,
On 7/2/2010 6:03 AM, Henry Story wrote:
On 2 Jul 2010, at 11:57, Patrick Durusau wrote:
On 7/2/2010 5:27 AM, Ian Davis wrote:
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Patrick Durusaupatr...@durusau.net
wrote:
I
Henry,
Another reason why the SW is failing:
You don't see it as a need because you don't think of the options you are
missing. Like people in 1800 did not think horses were slow, because they did
not consider that they could fly. Or if they did think of that it was just as a
dream.
Or
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 02.07.2010 12:53:11, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
But telling those user stories and marketing the solution bundles is
not something that can realistically be done via the medium of *specs*.
Yes, full agreement here. That's why the thread felt so weird to me,
I think the entire focus is wrong. But
-literalsubjects
The demand that W3C modify the specs to allow literals as subjects should be
rejected on a simple principle: Those who demand that change, including
yourself, have failed to put their money where their mouth is. Where is the
alternative specification that documents the syntactic
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 2:16 AM, Reto Bachmann-Gmuer
reto.bachm...@trialox.org wrote:
Serialization formats could support
Jo :nameOf :Jo
as a shortcut for
[ owl:sameAs Jo; :nameOf :Jo]
and a store could (internally) store the latter as
Jo :nameOf :Jo
for compactness and efficiency.
.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-literalsubjects
The demand that W3C modify the specs to allow literals as subjects
should be rejected on a simple principle: Those who demand that
change, including yourself, have failed to put their money where their
mouth is. Where is the alternative
Kingsley Idehen wrote:
So why: Subject-Predicate-Object (SPO) everywhere re. RDF?
O-R-O reflects what you've just described.
Like many of the RDF oddities (playing out nicely in this thread), you
have an O-R-O but everyone talks about S-P-O.
Subject has implicit meaning, it lends itself to
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 2:01 AM, Benjamin Nowack bnow...@semsol.com wrote:
On 01.07.2010 22:44:48, Pat Hayes wrote:
Jeremy, your argument is perfectly sound from your company's POV, but
not from a broader perspective. Of course, any change will incur costs
Well, I think the broader perspective
Patrick Durusau wrote:
Henry,
Another reason why the SW is failing:
You don't see it as a need because you don't think of the options you
are missing. Like people in 1800 did not think horses were slow,
because they did not consider that they could fly. Or if they did
think of that it was
Michael Schneider wrote:
Kingsley Idehen wrote:
So why: Subject-Predicate-Object (SPO) everywhere re. RDF?
O-R-O reflects what you've just described.
Like many of the RDF oddities (playing out nicely in this thread), you
have an O-R-O but everyone talks about S-P-O.
Subject has implicit
Henry Story wrote:
On 2 Jul 2010, at 15:22, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
I think, the main confusion comes from the use of the term object for two
entirely different things: In the case of O-R-O, it refers to (semantic)
individuals. In the case of S-P-O, it refers to a position in a
(syntactic)
/#rdfms-literalsubjects
The demand that W3C modify the specs to allow literals as subjects
should be rejected on a simple principle: Those who demand that change,
including yourself, have failed to put their money where their mouth is.
Where is the alternative specification that documents
Well, N3 is just predicate logic done badly. If we want to move in
that direction, I would vastly prefer extending RDF to ISO Common
Logic, or something based on it.
Pat
On Jul 2, 2010, at 2:45 AM, Nathan wrote:
Ian Davis wrote:
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us
will look into ISO Common Logic to get familiar then - fwiw so long as
it supports everything RDF Semantics supports, and allows graph
literals, I'm easy and can change at any time :)
Pat Hayes wrote:
Well, N3 is just predicate logic done badly. If we want to move in that
direction, I would
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 like { 'London' a
x:Place
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 8:34 AM, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
On Jul 2, 2010, at 7:27 AM, Paul Gearon wrote:
While this may be possible, you've promoted owl:sameAs to have a true
semantic relationship at this level. You're treating it as if it
really does mean equals.
Well, it does mean
On Jul 2, 2010, at 11:06 AM, Paul Gearon wrote:
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 8:34 AM, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
On Jul 2, 2010, at 7:27 AM, Paul Gearon wrote:
While this may be possible, you've promoted owl:sameAs to have a
true
semantic relationship at this level. You're treating it as
On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 17:39 +0100, Nathan wrote:
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.
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 like { 'London' a
x:Place
[snip]
This is the second time in a few hours that a thread has degenerated
into talk of accusations and insults.
I don't care who started it. Sometimes email just isn't the best way
to communicate. If people are feeling this way about an email
discussion, it might be worth the respective
On 7/2/2010 12:00 PM, Dan Brickley wrote:
Or maybe we should all just take a weekend break, mull things over for
a couple of days, and start fresh on monday? That's my plan anyhow...
Yeah, maybe some of us could meet up in some sunny place and sit in an
office, maybe at Stanford - just like
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Jeremy Carroll jer...@topquadrant.com wrote:
On 7/2/2010 12:00 PM, Dan Brickley wrote:
Or maybe we should all just take a weekend break, mull things over for
a couple of days, and start fresh on monday? That's my plan anyhow...
Yeah, maybe some of us could
Dan Brickley wrote:
[snip]
This is the second time in a few hours that a thread has degenerated
into talk of accusations and insults.
I don't care who started it. Sometimes email just isn't the best way
to communicate. If people are feeling this way about an email
discussion, it might be worth
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' }.
Surely all
1 - 100 of 193 matches
Mail list logo
