Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

[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
> 
> 
>