- From: Reto Bachmann-Gmuer <reto.bachmann@trialox.org>
- Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 11:16:12 +0200
- To: Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: Ross Singer <rossfsinger@gmail.com>, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 4:20 AM, Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: > In fact, a question I would like to ask, but suspect that noone who can > answer it is still reading this thread ( :-) ): > For those who implement RDF stores, do you have to do something special to > reject RDF that has literals as subject? I think more important than storing RDF is storing the expressed content. For the content expressed with RDF and OWL, resources can have 0 to n names and 0 or 1 literal value. When the content has to be represented as RDF triples owl:sameAs statements are created for the multiple names as well as possibly a bnode to prevent the literal being in subject position. As by using OWL this limitation of the RDF Abstract Syntax does not limit the expressiveness I see no need to change anything. Serialization formats could support "Jo" :nameOf :Jo as a shortcut for [ owl:sameAs "Jo"; :nameOf :Jo] and a store could (internally) store the latter as "Jo" :nameOf :Jo for compactness and efficiency. Reto
Received on Friday, 2 July 2010 09:16:42 UTC