Re: Subjects as Literals

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?


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



Received on Friday, 2 July 2010 06:05:07 UTC