Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

> I am still not hearing any argument to justify the costs of literals as
> subjects.

+1

Cheers,
      Michael

-- 
Dr. Michael Hausenblas
LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
Ireland, Europe
Tel. +353 91 495730
http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
http://sw-app.org/about.html



> From: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
> Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 08:38:00 -0700
> To: Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@gmail.com>
> Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Toby A Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, David Booth
> <david@dbooth.org>, <nathan@webr3.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>,
> Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web community
> <semantic-web@w3.org>
> Subject: Show me the money - (was  Subjects as Literals)
> Resent-From: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
> Resent-Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 15:38:42 +0000
> 
> 
> I am still not hearing any argument to justify the costs of literals as
> subjects
> 
> I have loads and loads of code, both open source and commercial that
> assumes throughout that a node in a subject position is not a literal,
> and a node in a predicate position is a URI node.
> 
> Of course, the "correct" thing to do is to allow all three node types in
> all three positions. (Well four if we take the graph name as well!)
> 
> But if we make a change,  all of my code base will need to be checked
> for this issue.
> This costs my company maybe $100K (very roughly)
> No one has even showed me $1K of advantage for this change.
> 
> It is a no brainer not to do the fix even if it is technically correct
> 
> Jeremy
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 1 July 2010 15:46:11 UTC