- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 15:52:12 -0400
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: nathan@webr3.org, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
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 data etc. > > I wholly agree. Allowing literals in subject position in RDF is a no- > brainer. 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 charter include literals as subjects: http://www.w3.org/2010/06/28-rdfn-minutes.html Charter MUST include: 0 Charter SHOULD include: 1 Charter MAY include: 6 Charter MUST NOT include: 12 Readers, please note that this was a non-binding, informative STRAW POLL ONLY -- not a vote. Pat, I wish you had been there. ;) David > (BTW, it would also immediately solve the 'bugs in the RDF > rules' problem.) These arguments against it are nonsensical. The REAL > argument against it is that it will mess up OWL-DL, or at any rate it > *might* mess up OWL-DL. > > The Description Logic police are still in charge:-) > > Pat > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Nathan > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > 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 > > > > > > > > -- David Booth, Ph.D. Cleveland Clinic (contractor) http://dbooth.org/ Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Cleveland Clinic.
Received on Wednesday, 30 June 2010 19:52:41 UTC