- From: Henry Story <henry.story@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 17:46:11 +0200
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
- Cc: Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@gmail.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Toby 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 <semantic-web@w3.org>
Jeremy, the point is to start the process, but put it on a low burner, so that in 4-5 years time, you will be able to sell a whole new RDF+ suite to your customers with this new benefit. ;-) On 1 Jul 2010, at 17:38, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > > 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. but is that really correct? Because bnodes can be names for literals, and so you really do have literals in subject positions.... No? > 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. I agree, it would be good to get a full list of the benefits. > > It is a no brainer not to do the fix even if it is technically correct > > Jeremy > >
Received on Thursday, 1 July 2010 15:46:53 UTC