- From: Henry Story <henry.story@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 20:51:38 +0200
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
- Cc: Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@gmail.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, nathan@webr3.org, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
On 1 Jul 2010, at 20:47, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > >> On 1 Jul 2010, at 17:38, Jeremy Carroll wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> I have loads and loads of code, both open source and commercial that assumes throughout that a node in a subject position is not a literal, and a node in a predicate position is a URI node. > On 7/1/2010 8:46 AM, Henry Story wrote: >> but is that really correct? Because bnodes can be names for literals, and so you really do have >> literals in subject positions.... No? > It is really correct that I have loads and loads of such code. > > This code conforms with the RDF Concepts and Abstract Syntax Recommendation 2004 So just as a matter of interest, imagine a new syntax came along that allowed literals in subject position, could you not write a serialiser for it that turned "123" length 3 . Into _:b owl:sameAs "123"; length 3. ? So that really you'd have to do no work at all? Just wondering.... Henry > > Jeremy >
Received on Thursday, 1 July 2010 18:52:25 UTC