- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 21:35:14 -0500
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Cc: 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>
On Jun 30, 2010, at 2:52 PM, 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. ;) I have very mixed views on this, I have to say. Part of me wanted badly to be present. But after reading the results of the straw poll, part of me wants to completely forget about RDF, never think about an ontology or a logic ever again, and go off and do something completely different, like art or philosophy. Pat > > 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. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ 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
Received on Thursday, 1 July 2010 03:07:22 UTC