- From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@deri.org>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 15:05:45 +0100
- To: "Houghton,Andrew" <houghtoa@oclc.org>
- CC: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Le 13/07/2010 14:56, Houghton,Andrew a écrit : >> From: semantic-web-request@w3.org [mailto:semantic-web-request@w3.org] >> On Behalf Of Pat Hayes >> Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 07:12 PM >> To: Graham Klyne >> Cc: Sandro Hawke; Semantic Web >> Subject: Re: RDF *already* supports literal subjects - a thought >> experiment >> >> First, as others have noted, we do already have a workable, if ugly, >> way to state what anyone might need to state with a literal subject in >> RDF already: instead of writing the obvious >> >> <literal> :p :o . >> >> one can write >> >> _:x :same<literal> . >> _:x :p :o . >> >> using whatever form of :same one prefers, such as owl:sameAs. So we >> don't need another complicated work-around. The point of allowing >> literals as subjects was to avoid having to use a work-around, not to >> invent a new one; and also, in fact, to simplify RDF and make it more >> elegant, also not a purpose which is served by yet another work- >> around. So this idea doesn't really help. > > First let me say that I don't fully understand the issues here, I > am not a expert, but I am trying to make sense of these issues in > the context of my current and future semantic web practice. What > Pat mentioned, above, actually made sense to me given the following > statement in the RDF concepts document: > > <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-concepts-20040210/#section-Literals> > > 3.4 Literals > Literals are used to identify values such as numbers and dates by means > of a lexical representation. Anything represented by a literal could > also be represented by a URI, but it is often more convenient or > intuitive to use literals." > > If *anything* represented by a literal could also be represented by a > URI, then: > > _:x owl:sameAs<literal> . > _:x :p :o . > > makes perfect sense to me. However, wouldn't the range of owl:sameAs > need to be expanded to include literals? There is no need to expand the range of owl:sameAs because nothing restricts the range of owl:sameAs. Regards, -- Antoine Zimmermann Post-doctoral researcher at: Digital Enterprise Research Institute National University of Ireland, Galway IDA Business Park Lower Dangan Galway, Ireland antoine.zimmermann@deri.org http://vmgal34.deri.ie/~antzim/
Received on Tuesday, 13 July 2010 14:06:22 UTC