- From: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@googlemail.com>
- Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:25:45 +0100
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 22:44 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote: > Jeremy, your argument is perfectly sound from your company's POV, but > not from a broader perspective. Of course, any change will incur costs > by those who have based their assumptions upon no change happening. > Your company took a risk, apparently. IMO it was a bad risk, as you > could have implemented a better inference engine if you had allowed > literal subjects internally in the first place, but whatever. I've tried to be quiet but I couldn't let this dig slide by ... Jena, which Jeremy's software is based on, *does* allow literals as subjects internally (the Graph SPI) and the rule reasoners *do* work with generalized triples just as most such RDF reasoners do. However, we go to some lengths to stop the generalized triples escaping. So the lack of subjects as triples in the exchange syntax or the publicly standardized model has had no detrimental impact on our ability to work with them internally. Dave [Apologies if this point has already been made down thread, I'm only 303 messages in and have 242 left to scan :)]
Received on Sunday, 11 July 2010 11:26:21 UTC