Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

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 extending RDF semantics)?
> 
> Not OWL full
>>  Or would it if
>> rdf:sameAs was introduced?
>>   
> 
> It would still break OWL DL
>> Best,
>> Jiri
>>   
> OWL DL is orthogonal to this issue. The OWL DLers already prohibit 
> certain RDF - specifically the workaround for not having literal as 
> subjects. So they are neutral.
> I reiterate that I agree whole-heartedly with the technical arguments 
> for making this change; however the economic case is missing.

Are you referring to the cost of fixing RDF/XML or the cost of 
specifying RDF correctly and having RDF/XML as a subset of RDF?

IMHO the economic case (and ethical, technical) is extremely strong when 
you look at it on the ten year timeline - pinning all of RDF on the 
serialization specific features and limitations of RDF/XML really 
hinders progress (now and in the future).

There doesn't need to be any cost here, define RDF properly and separate 
from any serialization, define RDF/XML as a subset of it, and let us all 
get on and create new and wonderful serializations that will drive 
another decade of innovation.

I'm 100% sure that if tooling for N3 was more widely available and the 
web of data was N3 powered, we'd be much further down the line - the 
proof is already there with the work done at MIT-CSAIL and RPI, fact is 
you simply can't do everything needed for a web of data with RDF/XML.

Best,

Nathan