W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > July 2010

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

From: Henry Story <henry.story@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 17:46:11 +0200
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>
Message-Id: <F79A3C82-A0E2-43B9-94A1-3CF37D59BD1A@bblfish.net>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:48:11 UTC