Re: RDF Extensibility

On Jul 7, 2010, at 11:31 AM, Reto Bachmann-Gmuer wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Toby Inkster <> 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

Received on Thursday, 8 July 2010 17:22:55 UTC