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

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

From: Henry Story <henry.story@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 18:45:09 +0200
Cc: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, nathan@webr3.org, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-Id: <2FF56AFB-80E5-4E2C-BE13-550A1DEF29AF@gmail.com>
To: Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@gmail.com>

On 1 Jul 2010, at 18:18, Yves Raimond wrote:

>> 
>> In any case RDF Semantics does, I believe,
>> allow literals in subject position. It is just that many many syntaxes
>> don't allow that to be expressed,
> 
> 
> It doesn't seem to be allowed in the RDF semantics:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-Literals
> 
> "A literal may be the object of an RDF statement, but not the subject
> or the predicate."

Yes, but a bnode or a URI can refer to a literal. So if those can refer to a literal,
then instead of writing

[1] _:n1 owl:sameAs "hello";
     numLetters 5 .

Why not also allow one to write

[2] "hello" numLetters 5.

?

That is what I meant. 

In any case one can always map [2] to [1], so I am not sure
the costs of allowing [2] need be that high. Every current implementation
could just parse [2] and write it out as [1].

No?

It just seems that [2] is a more concise way of writing things, and
it is conceptually cleaner. 


Henry
Received on Thursday, 1 July 2010 16:45:53 UTC

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