W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > July 2010

Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

From: John Erickson <olyerickson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 12:05:34 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTiniTTK_lNtQtff7ZItLg8qJ0QW-8S8MOww49y2e@mail.gmail.com>
To: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
RE getting "a full list of the benefits," surely if it's being
discussed here, "Literals as Subjects" must be *somebody's* Real(tm)
Problem and the benefits are inherent in its solution?

And if it isn't, um, why is it being discussed here? ;)

On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Henry Story <henry.story@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jeremy, the point is to start the process, but put it on a low burner,
> so that in 4-5 years time, you will be able to sell a whole new RDF+ suite to your customers with this new benefit.  ;-)
>
> On 1 Jul 2010, at 17:38, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>
>>
>> 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.
>
> but is that really correct? Because bnodes can be names for literals, and so you really do have
> literals in subject positions.... No?
>
>
>> 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.
>
> I agree, it would be good to get a full list of the benefits.
>
>>
>> It is a no brainer not to do the fix even if it is technically correct
>>
>> Jeremy
>>
>>
>
>
>



-- 
John S. Erickson, Ph.D.
http://bitwacker.wordpress.com
olyerickson@gmail.com
Twitter: @olyerickson
Received on Thursday, 1 July 2010 16:06:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:42:20 UTC