- From: Henry Story <henry.story@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 10:38:23 +0200
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- 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 30 Jun 2010, at 21:09, Pat Hayes wrote:
>>
>> For example I've heard people saying that it encourages bad 'linked data' practise by using examples like { 'London' a x:Place } - whereas I'd immediately counter with { x:London a 'Place' }.
>>
>> 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. (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:-)
I agree that literals can be subjects. In any case they are, because you just can take an inverse function from a thing to a string, and you have it.
But I do think
'London' a x:Place
is bad design because really 'London' is a string and not a place.
Now of course x:Place my be the collection of names of places in english, in which case it is ok. So it is difficult to say just like that. There would have to be quite a lot of education in the when is it right to use strings as subjects space.
Henry
>
> Pat
Received on Thursday, 1 July 2010 08:39:04 UTC