- From: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 09:22:45 -0700
- To: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@googlemail.com>
- CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
On 7/11/2010 4:25 AM, Dave Reynolds wrote: > > 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. I have noticed similar points - a lot of reasoner based software, and graph internals software, and probably triple storage software will allow subjects as literals - but when considering systems and applications that actually do something useful (rather than just the internals) then you interface with people, and the difference between a literal and something else is crucial. This is where I see the costs. Jeremy
Received on Sunday, 11 July 2010 16:23:13 UTC