Re: Latest changes introducing the RDF API

On Apr 18, 2011, at 14:10 , Nathan wrote:

<snip/>
> 
> For the RDF API, we've already discussed this previously where you yourself mentioned that often literals as subjects are needed for advanced usage, when querying and for rules etc, these modules wouldn't be able to use the API, or would have to break it compatibility wise, if we preclude literal subjects, so why go there just for the sake of consistency between specifications on an area that is already widely inconsistent and when the feature is actually required to process and use RDF in some cases?
> 

Actually, the issue for OWL RL implementation is with bnodes as properties rather than literals as subjects... But yes, you have a point there, I admit. It is not the issue of not being able to do that, but rather that it requires workarounds. I am still _very_ uneasy.

B.t.w., while we are at it: I do not know if you followed the f2f discussion on 'standard' skolemization. It may be a good idea to have such a skolemization built into the API, so that users would not be forced to implement that again and again... Using that, the bnode as predicate problem might disappear, because a user could use that in its own deduction process.

Ivan


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf