- From: Reto Bachmann-Gmuer <reto.bachmann@trialox.org>
- Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 18:16:34 +0200
- To: Henry Story <henry.story@gmail.com>
- Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Henry Story <henry.story@gmail.com> wrote: >> 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? BNodes and UriRefs can be used in place of and be the same resource as a literal. The abstract syntax forces literal in object position, but with semantic extensions (owl:sameAs) you can express the same as you could having Literals in subject position. > > >> Of course, the "correct" thing to do is to allow all three node types in all three positions. While allowing Literal as subjects would cause cost of adapting existing code, allowing bnode as predicates i think would make many algorithms computationally more expensive. I don't see how a literal could be a property (we could syntactical allow it, but wouldn't every use of this feature be a contradiction?) Cheers, reto
Received on Thursday, 1 July 2010 16:17:05 UTC