W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > July 2010

Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

From: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 08:38:00 -0700
Message-ID: <4C2CB658.10403@topquadrant.com>
To: Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@gmail.com>
CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, nathan@webr3.org, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>

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, the "correct" thing to do is to allow all three node types in 
all three positions. (Well four if we take the graph name as well!)

But if we make a change,  all of my code base will need to be checked 
for this issue.
This costs my company maybe $100K (very roughly)
No one has even showed me $1K of advantage for this change.

It is a no brainer not to do the fix even if it is technically correct

Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 1 July 2010 15:38:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:28 UTC