Pat Hayes wrote: > > On Jul 1, 2010, at 10:06 PM, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > >> On 7/1/2010 7:51 PM, Pat Hayes wrote: >>> >>> The mistake here is to presume that simple character strings in RDF >>> are being used as though they were words. But this is such a basic >>> error that I doubt if anyone who holds it is going to be able to use >>> RDF successfully in any case. >>> >>> >> >> Pat - one of the key problems with subject as literals, is that this >> basic error will be compounded in "spades" - particularly by people >> who have been told by their managers to make their data public. > > Why will it be worse when they are subjects than it would be (is?) when > they are used in the third position? Jeremy, so in my FOAF I have this.. { :me foaf:name "Nathan" } but even if it was { "Nathan" :x :me . :x owl:inverseOf foaf:name } the :me is still dereferenceable even if it's in the o position.. and nobody says that *every* triple has to be dereferencable, if you get to the graph/doc via one triple, you get the rest for free! - last post on this thread from me, bailing Best, NathanReceived on Friday, 2 July 2010 06:05:07 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:19 UTC