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

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

From: Axel Rauschmayer <axel@rauschma.de>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 22:12:54 +0200
Message-Id: <BE8072CA-8E7A-41EE-8B1A-306A618BD97B@rauschma.de>
Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, nathan@webr3.org, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Intuitively, I would expect each subject literal to have a unique identity. For example, I would want to annotate a particular instance of "abc" and not all literals "abc". Wouldn't the latter treatment make literals-as-subjects less appealing?

Re. the DL police: I use RDF like a next-generation relational database and think that RDF could be sold to many people this way (there is possibly are larger audience for this than for ontologies, reasoning, etc.). Especially considering how No-SQL is currently taking off. This part needs some love and seems to suffer from the almost exclusive focus on semantics.

Axel

On Jun 30, 2010, at 21:52 , David Booth wrote:

> On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 14:09 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote:
>> On Jun 30, 2010, at 11:50 AM, Nathan wrote:
> [ . . . ]
>>> Surely all of the subjects as literals arguments can be countered  
>>> with 'walk round it', and further good practise could be aided by a  
>>> few simple notes on best practise for linked data etc.
>> 
>> I wholly agree. Allowing literals in subject position in RDF is a no- 
>> brainer. 
> 
> I agree, but at the W3C RDF Next Steps workshop over the weekend, I was
> surprised to find that there was substantial sentiment *against* having
> literals as subjects.  A straw poll showed that of those at the
> workshop, this is how people felt about having an RDF working group
> charter include literals as subjects:
> http://www.w3.org/2010/06/28-rdfn-minutes.html
> 
>  Charter MUST include:      0
>  Charter SHOULD include:    1
>  Charter MAY include:       6
>  Charter MUST NOT include: 12
> 
> Readers, please note that this was a non-binding, informative STRAW POLL
> ONLY -- not a vote.
> 
> Pat, I wish you had been there.  ;)
> 
> David
> 
>> (BTW, it would also immediately solve the 'bugs in the RDF  
>> rules' problem.) These arguments against it are nonsensical. The REAL  
>> argument against it is that it will mess up OWL-DL, or at any rate it  
>> *might* mess up OWL-DL.
>> 
>> The Description Logic police are still in charge:-)
>> 
>> Pat
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> 
>>> Nathan
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
>> 40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
>> Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
>> FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
>> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> David Booth, Ph.D.
> Cleveland Clinic (contractor)
> http://dbooth.org/
> 
> Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
> reflect those of Cleveland Clinic.
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
Axel.Rauschmayer@ifi.lmu.de
http://hypergraphs.de/
:: Hyena: connected information manager, free at hypergraphs.de/hyena/ ::
Received on Wednesday, 30 June 2010 20:13:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:36 GMT