[cc's trimmed] I'm with Jeremy here, the problem's economic not technical. If we could introduce subjects-as-literals in a way that: (a) doesn't invalidate any existing RDF, and (b) doesn't permit the generation of RDF/XML that existing applications cannot parse, then I think there's a possible way forward. #g -- BTW, which list is the most appropriate for this discussion? I seem to be getting 4 copies of some messages! Jeremy Carroll wrote: > Jiří Procházka wrote: >> >> I wonder, when using owl:sameAs or related, to "name" literals to be >> able to say other useful thing about them in normal triples (datatype, >> language, etc) does it break OWL DL > yes it does > >> (or any other formalism which is >> base of some ontology extending RDF semantics)? > > Not OWL full >> Or would it if >> rdf:sameAs was introduced? >> > > It would still break OWL DL >> Best, >> Jiri >> > OWL DL is orthogonal to this issue. The OWL DLers already prohibit > certain RDF - specifically the workaround for not having literal as > subjects. So they are neutral. > I reiterate that I agree whole-heartedly with the technical arguments > for making this change; however the economic case is missing. > > Jeremy > > >Received on Friday, 2 July 2010 07:53:12 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:19 UTC