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

Re: Subjects as Literals

From: Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 22:07:57 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTikCJX2vClfHuZR02OiAoEVI8hEfjHUD7oZpvL-C@mail.gmail.com>
To: nathan@webr3.org
Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Hello!

On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
> Pat Hayes wrote:
>>
>> However, before I lose any more of my SW friends, let me say at once that
>> I am NOT arguing for this change to RDF.
>
> so after hundreds of emails, I have to ask - what (the hell) defines RDF?
>
> I've read that 'The RDF Semantics as stated works fine with triples which
> have any kind of syntactic node in any position in any combination.'
>
> Do the 'RDF Semantics' define RDF? or do the serializations?
>
> simply - does RDF support literal subjects or not - I've read the
> aforementioned sentence to read 'RDF Semantics support literal subjects' or
> should I be reading 'RDF Semantics could support literal subjects' or 'does
> support literal subjects' or?
>
> Just seeking a definitive bit of clarity on 1: what defines RDF, 2: what is
> *currently* supported in that definition.

According to this recommendation, it doesn't support any kind of node
in any position:

http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-Literals

So no, it's not something serialisation-specific.

Best,
y

>
> Preferably a serialization unspecific answer :)
>
> Best & TIA,
>
> Nathan
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 6 July 2010 21:08:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:42:21 UTC