W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > June 2010

Re: Subjects as Literals

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 14:55:29 -0400
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Cc: nathan@webr3.org, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1277924129.11479.13602.camel@dbooth-laptop>
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 14:30 -0400, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> Nathan wrote:
> > Pat Hayes wrote:
[ . . . ]
> > 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.
> IMHO an emphatic NO.
> RDF is about constructing structured descriptions where "Subjects" have 
> Identifiers in the form of Name References (which may or many resolve to 
> Structured Representations of Referents carried or borne by Descriptor 
> Docs/Resources). An "Identifier" != Literal.
> If you are in a situation where you can't or don't want to mint an HTTP 
> based Name, simply use a URN, it does the job.

Can you explain *why* you think literals should not be permitted as
subjects?  The rationale you have given above sounds like it is saying
that literals should not be subjects because RDF does not permit
literals to be subjects.  

IMHO, RDF should allow "anyone to say anything about anything" -- not
"anyone to say anything about anything . . . except a literal".
However, if you see some specific harm in permitting statements about
literals, please tell us what that harm would be.

David Booth, Ph.D.
Cleveland Clinic (contractor)

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of Cleveland Clinic.
Received on Wednesday, 30 June 2010 18:55:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:21:02 UTC