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

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

From: Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 18:15:22 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTilBKChDJ4fXxMF0kFRTqMBg9mDEooe-tFSaaBOv@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
Cc: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, nathan@webr3.org, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
Hello Jeremy!

One example on the top of my head. You have a 'magic predicate' such as
Virtuoso bif:contains, but slightly more expansive than that (a large index
lookup, a difficult mathematical computation or fuzzy literal search, etc).
If you were able to store the result in RDF once that magic predicate had
been triggered once, you would just directly match against the cached
version in further queries. Hence, processing time-- and $++ :)

Cheers,
y

On 1 Jul 2010 16:37, "Jeremy Carroll" <jeremy@topquadrant.com> 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.

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.

It is a no brainer not to do the fix even if it is technically correct

Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 1 July 2010 17:15:59 UTC

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