W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > July 2010

Re: Subjects as Literals

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2010 22:31:50 +0100
Message-ID: <4C33A0C6.1020303@webr3.org>
To: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@deri.org>
CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Thanks for the clarification Antione,

I'll take one of those generalised rdf's to go when available, can I pre 



Antoine Zimmermann wrote:
> So to clarify a bit:
> A serialisation is just a way to write down an RDF document in a 
> computer. A serialisation of RDF must respect the abstract RDF syntax, 
> which forbids literals in subject position. If the serialisation allows 
> literals as subject, it is not a serialisation of RDF but it serialises 
> a more general language (e.g., N3).
> Then comes the semantics. The semantics does not allow or disallow 
> anything, it just provides a notion of interpretation of an RDF 
> vocabulary, and a notion of satisfaction of an RDF document (which must 
> *not* have a literal in subject position). However, what we mean by 
> saying, informally, that "the semantics allows literals in subject" is 
> that the very same semantics could be applied to generalised RDF.
> So, strictly speaking, no, the semantics does not allow you to put 
> literals in subject, but it allows you to straightforwardly define the 
> possible meaning of a generalised triple.
> AZ
> Le 06/07/2010 22:02, Nathan a écrit :
>> Pat Hayes wrote:
>>> However, before I lose any more of my SW friends, let me say at once
>>> that I am NOT arguing for this change to RDF.
>> so after hundreds of emails, I have to ask - what (the hell) defines RDF?
>> I've read that 'The RDF Semantics as stated works fine with triples
>> which have any kind of syntactic node in any position in any 
>> combination.'
>> Do the 'RDF Semantics' define RDF? or do the serializations?
>> simply - does RDF support literal subjects or not - I've read the
>> aforementioned sentence to read 'RDF Semantics support literal subjects'
>> or should I be reading 'RDF Semantics could support literal subjects' or
>> 'does support literal subjects' or?
>> Just seeking a definitive bit of clarity on 1: what defines RDF, 2: what
>> is *currently* supported in that definition.
>> Preferably a serialization unspecific answer :)
>> Best & TIA,
>> Nathan
Received on Tuesday, 6 July 2010 21:32:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:48:11 UTC