- From: John Erickson <olyerickson@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 12:05:34 -0400
- To: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
RE getting "a full list of the benefits," surely if it's being discussed here, "Literals as Subjects" must be *somebody's* Real(tm) Problem and the benefits are inherent in its solution? And if it isn't, um, why is it being discussed here? ;) On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Henry Story <henry.story@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >> >> > > > -- John S. Erickson, Ph.D. http://bitwacker.wordpress.com olyerickson@gmail.com Twitter: @olyerickson
Received on Thursday, 1 July 2010 16:06:28 UTC