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

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

From: Henry Story <henry.story@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 21:11:11 +0200
Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>, Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@gmail.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, nathan@webr3.org, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-Id: <EEE92F3B-4D63-4BC1-AC72-0A5F0334C71C@gmail.com>
To: Tim Finin <finin@cs.umbc.edu>

Social Web Architect

On 1 Jul 2010, at 21:03, Tim Finin wrote:

> On 7/1/10 2:51 PM, Henry Story wrote:
> > ...
>> So just as a matter of interest, imagine a new syntax came along that allowed literals in
>> subject position, could you not write a serialiser for it that turned
>>    "123" length 3 .
>> Into
>>  _:b owl:sameAs "123";
>>      length 3.
>> ?
>> So that really you'd have to do no work at all?
>> Just wondering....
> Isn't owl:sameAs defined to be a relation between two
> URI references?  

Not sure.

In any case I suppose it would be simple to crete such an identity relation. 

> Even if not, it is symmetric and
> would have the above imply {"123" owl:sameAs _:b .}

It does indeed imply that, though you can't write it out like that 
in most serialisations, other than N3.

And being able to write it out, makes it easy to explain what symmetry means.

I think people keep confusing syntax and semantics for some reason, even on
the semantic web.

Received on Thursday, 1 July 2010 19:11:45 UTC

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