Re: RDF Extensibility

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk> wrote:

> Without knowing the definition of foaf:Person, it's difficult to
> conclude that foaf:Person is not a property. However, even without
> knowing the definition of a literal, it is easy to conclude that it is
> not a suitable node to be used as a property, so in my opinion, it is
> sensible to state that triples containing a literal as the predicate
> have no meaning (even though I think they should be syntactically
> allowed).
>

I think it would be perfectly possible to have a datatype mapping to a
value-space of properties. But I see no practical benefit with this so I'd
prefer not to support literal predicates syntactically.

Reto