- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2010 07:03:58 +0100
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- CC: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
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,
Nathan
Received on Friday, 2 July 2010 06:05:07 UTC