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
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.
Sandro, all,
I created the wikipage as you suggested. It is sketchy and certainly a
bit biased towards my own opinion but I guess this will be improved as
the document extends.
Le 07/07/2010 05:01, Sandro Hawke a écrit :
Would anyone be willing to try to capture the results of this thread
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
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 there are volunteers to
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
, 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 after hundreds of emails, I
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 with
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
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
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
[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 a
Hello Ivan!
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 5:50 AM, Ivan Mikhailov
imikhai...@openlinksw.com wrote:
Hello Yves,
It's a virtuoso function surfaced as a predicate.
magic predicate was an initial moniker used at creation time.
bif:contains doesn't exist in pure triple form etc..
Why couldn't it?
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
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
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 that
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
Hi Yves,
[trimmed cc list]
On 2 Jul 2010, at 11:15, Yves Raimond wrote:
I am not arguing for each vendor to implement that. I am arguing for
removing this arbitrary limitation from the RDF spec. Also marked as
an issue since 2000:
http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-literalsubjects
On 2 Jul 2010, at 12:42, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
Hi Yves,
[trimmed cc list]
On 2 Jul 2010, at 11:15, Yves Raimond wrote:
I am not arguing for each vendor to implement that. I am arguing for
removing this arbitrary limitation from the RDF spec. Also marked as
an issue since 2000:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jul 1, 2010, at 9:42 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 3:49 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Nathan wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster
Hi Richard!
[trimmed cc list]
On 2 Jul 2010, at 11:15, Yves Raimond wrote:
I am not arguing for each vendor to implement that. I am arguing for
removing this arbitrary limitation from the RDF spec. Also marked as
an issue since 2000:
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.
On Fri, 2010-07-02 at 12:42 +0200, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
Hi Yves,
On 2 Jul 2010, at 11:15, Yves Raimond wrote:
I am not arguing for each vendor to implement that. I am arguing for
removing this arbitrary limitation from the RDF spec. Also marked as
an issue since 2000:
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
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)
Richard Cyganiak wrote:
Hi Yves,
[trimmed cc list]
On 2 Jul 2010, at 11:15, Yves Raimond wrote:
I am not arguing for each vendor to implement that. I am arguing for
removing this arbitrary limitation from the RDF spec. Also marked as
an issue since 2000:
On Jul 2, 2010, at 6:52 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jul 1, 2010, at 9:42 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 3:49 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Nathan wrote:
Pat Hayes
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
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jul 2, 2010, at 6:52 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jul 1, 2010, at 9:42 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 3:49 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Nathan
[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
On 2010/7/1 22:42, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 3:49 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Nathan wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010
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
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 22:14 -0500, 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 (besides
being an academic exercise)?
A few off the top of my head.
1. Titles of
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
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 3:49 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Nathan wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:54:20 +0100
Dan Brickley dan...@danbri.org
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
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
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
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
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 5:22 PM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
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
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
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 5:45 PM, Henry Story henry.st...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 Jul 2010, at 18:18, Yves Raimond wrote:
In any case RDF Semantics does, I believe,
allow literals in subject position. It is just that many many syntaxes
don't allow that to be expressed,
It doesn't seem to be
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
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
On Jul 1, 2010, at 3:38 AM, Henry Story wrote:
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' }.
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
On Jul 1, 2010, at 9:42 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 3:49 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Nathan wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun
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
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
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,
Nathan wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:54:20 +0100
Dan Brickley dan...@danbri.org wrote:
That said, i'm sure sameAs and differentIndividual (or however it is
called) claims could probably make a mess, if added or removed...
You
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.
On Jun 30, 2010, at 11:50 AM, Nathan wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:54:20 +0100
Dan Brickley dan...@danbri.org wrote:
That said, i'm sure sameAs and differentIndividual (or however it
is
called) claims could probably make a
On Jun 30, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Nathan wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:54:20 +0100
Dan Brickley dan...@danbri.org wrote:
That said, i'm sure sameAs and differentIndividual (or however
it is
called) claims
1 - 100 of 129 matches
Mail list logo
