W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > July 2010

Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

From: Henry Story <henry.story@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 20:51:38 +0200
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, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-Id: <FA51E289-B682-4899-BA2E-7F3228711D78@gmail.com>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>

On 1 Jul 2010, at 20:47, Jeremy Carroll wrote:

>> On 1 Jul 2010, at 17:38, Jeremy Carroll 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.
> On 7/1/2010 8:46 AM, Henry Story wrote:
>> but is that really correct? Because bnodes can be names for literals, and so you really do have
>> literals in subject positions.... No?
> It is really correct that I have loads and loads of such code.
> This code conforms with the RDF Concepts and Abstract Syntax Recommendation 2004

So just as a matter of interest, imagine a new syntax came along that allowed literals in
subject position, could you not write a serialiser for it that turned 

"123" length 3 .


_:b owl:sameAs "123";
   length 3. 


So that really you'd have to do no work at all?

Just wondering....


> Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 1 July 2010 18:52:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:19 UTC