On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 5:45 PM, Henry Story <henry.story@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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. I definitely agree... For my thesis work, I had to store quite a lot of signal processing computations in RDF, and had to hack a few triple stores (mainly SWI's one) to handle literals as subjects. I used a similar hack to do that, it was very easy to implement... yReceived on Thursday, 1 July 2010 16:51:35 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:18 UTC