Re: Capturing the discussion (RE: Subjects as Literals)

Sandro, all,

I created the wikipage as you suggested. It is sketchy and certainly a 
bit biased towards my own opinion but I guess this will be improved as 
the document extends.

Le 07/07/2010 05:01, Sandro Hawke a écrit :
> Would anyone be willing to try to capture the results of this thread in
> a page or two of consensus (neutral point-of-view) text that would
> explain the situation to at least a majority of the folks who've jumped
> in here with misunderstandings?
> To my reading, you (Michael) and Antoine are expressing that most
> clearly, if you'd be willing.

Michael, feel free to modify my first input.

> It would be good, I think, to incorporate the ideas and perhaps the
> structure used at the workshop:
> ... but probably do it on another wiki page, eg:
> (which does not yet
> exist as I write this).
> We could think of this as a FAQ response, where the Questions are
> something like:
>        Why can't I use Literals in the subject position in RDF?

For me, the only answer I know to this question is:
"You can't use literals as subjects because the spec says so."

It would be good to have the history of this restriction to know why it 
was put in the spec in the first place.

>        When are you going to change this?

Hmm, can we really answer that question when the community is still very 
divided on whether it should be changed at all?

>        How can I work around this restriction?
> and maybe:
>        What would anyone want to use literals as subjects?
>        What would it mean to use a literal as a predicate?

> Hoping someone will feel inspired to tie this up with a nice bow,
>      -- Sandro


Received on Thursday, 8 July 2010 22:07:09 UTC