W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: Question about literals in subject position

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:47:14 +0200
Message-ID: <4AC1BB82.7030500@w3.org>
To: Paul Gearon <gearon@ieee.org>
CC: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

Paul Gearon wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 9:49 AM, Birte Glimm
> <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> We could change the definition to allow literals as subjects - in order to maintain compatibility absolutely with the Query 1.0 spec, the restriction could be moved into the definition of simple entailment matching, freeing it up for other entailment regimes.
>>> Query 1.0 notes that the RDF WG knew of no reason not permit them except the syntax issues with RDF/XML.
> I can't recall where I saw this, but didn't the RDF folks consider
> adding them in if a new version of RDF ever happens?

This is certainly one of the issues that a new RDF group would have to
look at.

_However_, and obviously putting the SemWeb Activity Head's hat on, it
is not clear at all in my mind that re-opening an RDF group would be a
good thing. RDF is at the centre of Semantic Web technologies, and
reopening the group _may_ send out a message of instability that the
market does not need. After all, it is only recently that we see this
market to become more stabilized and prospering. (And, yes, I am torn on
this issue and I know there will be disagreement on this...)

We certainly should not expect any change on this subject during the
lifetime of this group.



Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

Received on Tuesday, 29 September 2009 07:47:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:57 UTC