- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 18:17:33 +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, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com> 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. > > 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 Well said. Spend the money on a W3C-license javascript SPARQL engine, or on fixing and documenting and test suiting what's out there already. And whatever's left on rewriting it in Ruby, Scale, Lua ... Better still, put the money up as a prize, then you only have to give it to one party, while dozens of others will slave away for free in pursuit of said loot ;) Dan
Received on Thursday, 1 July 2010 16:18:05 UTC