On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 7:21 PM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote: > > On Jul 7, 2010, at 11:31 AM, Reto Bachmann-Gmuer wrote: > > 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. > > > I'd suggest, as a general principle, that one should ask: which is easier, > to allow them or to prohibit them? There are costs both ways. Words like > 'support' beg the question. > Evaluating the revision of a standard many questions are around the trade-off between stability and design elegance. The allegedly neutral terms "allow" and "prohibit" seem to beg this question. Reto
Received on Thursday, 8 July 2010 20:06:44 UTC