On Jul 7, 2010, at 11:31 AM, Reto Bachmann-Gmuer wrote: > On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk> wrote: > Without knowing the definition of foaf:Person, it's difficult to > conclude that foaf:Person is not a property. However, even without > knowing the definition of a literal, it is easy to conclude that it is > not a suitable node to be used as a property, so in my opinion, it is > sensible to state that triples containing a literal as the predicate > have no meaning (even though I think they should be syntactically > allowed). > > I think it would be perfectly possible to have a datatype mapping to > a value-space of properties. But I see no practical benefit with > this so I'd prefer not to support literal predicates syntactically. > I'd suggest, as a general principle, that one should ask: which is easier, to allow them or to prohibit them? There are costs both ways. Words like 'support' beg the question. Pat Hayes > Reto ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Thursday, 8 July 2010 17:22:55 UTC