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

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