- From: Henry Story <henry.story@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 18:45:09 +0200
- To: Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@gmail.com>
- Cc: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, nathan@webr3.org, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
On 1 Jul 2010, at 18:18, Yves Raimond wrote:
>>
>> In any case RDF Semantics does, I believe,
>> allow literals in subject position. It is just that many many syntaxes
>> don't allow that to be expressed,
>
>
> It doesn't seem to be allowed in the RDF semantics:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-Literals
>
> "A literal may be the object of an RDF statement, but not the subject
> or the predicate."
Yes, but a bnode or a URI can refer to a literal. So if those can refer to a literal,
then instead of writing
[1] _:n1 owl:sameAs "hello";
numLetters 5 .
Why not also allow one to write
[2] "hello" numLetters 5.
?
That is what I meant.
In any case one can always map [2] to [1], so I am not sure
the costs of allowing [2] need be that high. Every current implementation
could just parse [2] and write it out as [1].
No?
It just seems that [2] is a more concise way of writing things, and
it is conceptually cleaner.
Henry
Received on Thursday, 1 July 2010 16:45:53 UTC