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

On 2 Jul 2010, at 12:42, Richard Cyganiak wrote:

> Hi Yves,
> 
> [trimmed cc list]
> 
> On 2 Jul 2010, at 11:15, Yves Raimond wrote:
>> I am not arguing for each vendor to implement that. I am arguing for
>> removing this arbitrary limitation from the RDF spec. Also marked as
>> an issue since 2000:
>> http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-literalsubjects
> 
> The demand that W3C modify the specs to allow literals as subjects should be rejected on a simple principle: Those who demand that change, including yourself, have failed to put their money where their mouth is. Where is the alternative specification that documents the syntactic and semantic extension? Where are the proposed "RDF/XML++" and "RDFa++" that support literals as subjects? Where are the patches to Jena, Sesame, Redland and ARC2 that support these changes?
> 
> The restriction seems to bother some people enough that they write noisy emails, but it apparently doesn't bother them enough to actually do anything about it.

Sorry it is implemented in Cwm, and Euler sharp, and the N3 javascript parser in tabulator, and we
hear about rules having them, and even them being allowed by the latest OWL 2 spec.

Furthermore as argued it is not complicated to do allow existing systems to use this:

take any 

 "ted" chars 3 .

and transform to

 [] sameas "ted"
    chars 3.

There is even a language for it called N3, that is what SPARQL was based on.

   So I don't see why you have to be so agressive here.

	Henry

Received on Friday, 2 July 2010 10:54:41 UTC