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

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

From: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 13:18:25 -0700
Message-ID: <4C2BA691.7020006@topquadrant.com>
To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
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>
David Booth wrote:
> 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

I was one of the "MUST NOT"s to my surprise.

Here are the reasons I voted this way:

- it will mess up RDF/XML
- RDF/XML is horrid but we had consensus that it was unfixable - i.e. we 
need to live with it.
- however little work the WG does is too much in terms of the real 
obstacles to SW success (following Dan from

What I feel is
missing (despite the *millions*) that has been thrown at the Semantic
Web brand, is the boring slog of getting the base tools and software

). In particular my view is that literals as subjects is not part of the 
problem to be solved.
- this is a purists' desire not a practical obstacle. No value-adding 
argument made for a change of this magnitude. It's a bug. Fixing it may 
cost $0.5M to $1M say, maybe more. I don't see that much return.

Received on Wednesday, 30 June 2010 20:19:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:49:57 UTC