- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 13:35:36 +0100
- To: "'Steve Harris'" <steve.harris@garlik.com>, "'Pat Hayes'" <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: "'Ivan Herman'" <ivan@w3.org>, "'Guus Schreiber'" <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>, "'RDF WG'" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Tuesday, November 06, 2012 12:47 PM, Steve Harris wrote: > > The counter to that though is more of a human factors thing: if we > allowed literals as subjects in triples then people would use them as > identifiers. It's familiar from the DB world, and not obviously wrong > to people who don't grok "Linked Data". Linked Data is a completely different story so let's discuss that separately. > Sometimes it's harmless, e.g. > 23765 a :Integer . > > Other times it's not harmless: > 23765 a :Widget . > > Other times it's even hard to demonstrate that it's a bad idea: > "8d8b0e54-6b8f-43ab-aff9-26a7a12890a0" a :LogEntry . > > It's not speculation, I've heard people complain that they can't use > integers to identify e.g. people, and have to stick a URI prefix on the > front. > > We'd have the same issues with lexical "tags", and other things that > are identifiers in some defined context. The thing I really don't understand is how literals are any different than blank nodes in this specific context. Does it really matter whether one uses _:8d8b0e54-6b8f-43ab-aff9-26a7a12890a0 instead of just 8d8b0e54-6b8f-43ab-aff9-26a7a12890a0? The results are exactly the same: you end up with a local identifier. What's interests me even more is the reasoning behind the restriction put on properties (no bnodes in predicates). I already know that it was decided quite some time ago and that this group isn't chartered to make such changes. Thanks, Markus -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler
Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2012 12:36:18 UTC