- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 11:34:55 +0100
- To: Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: Ross Singer <rossfsinger@gmail.com>, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
On 2010-07-01, at 03:20, Hugh Glaser wrote: > In fact, a question I would like to ask, but suspect that noone who can > answer it is still reading this thread ( :-) ): > For those who implement RDF stores, do you have to do something special to > reject RDF that has literals as subject? In my defence, I'm not reading this thread, but someone pointed me at it :) Yes, and no. The engine will reject any literals in the subject position, the index can't represent that. It's a source of significant optimisations, and we would have to do a /lot/ of engineering work to allow them. To be brief: I don't care if there are usecases for literals in the subject position. It you could rewind time 10 years I might like them in there, but we've invested millions of pounds in engineering RDF stores conforming to RDF 2004. I can't, and won't throw that work away for some relatively obscure benefits. - Steve -- Steve Harris, Garlik Limited 1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK +44 20 8439 8203 http://www.garlik.com/ Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11 Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
Received on Thursday, 1 July 2010 10:35:31 UTC