Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Pat Hayes wrote:
> On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:54:20 +0100
>> Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:
>>> That said, i'm sure sameAs and differentIndividual (or however it is
>>> called) claims could probably make a mess, if added or removed...
>>
>> You can create some pretty awesome messes even without OWL:
>>
>>     # An rdf:List that loops around...
>>
>>     <#mylist> a rdf:List ;
>>         rdf:first <#Alice> ;
>>         rdf:next <#mylist> .
>>
>>     # A looping, branching mess...
>>
>>     <#anotherlist> a rdf:List ;
>>         rdf:first <#anotherlist> ;
>>         rdf:next <#anotherlist> .
>>
> 
> They might be messy, but they are *possible* structures using pointers, 
> which is what the RDF vocabulary describes.  Its just about impossible 
> to guarantee that messes can't happen when all you are doing is 
> describing structures in an open-world setting. But I think the cure is 
> to stop thinking that possible-messes are a problem to be solved. So, 
> there is dung in the road. Walk round it.
> 

Could we also apply that to the 'subjects as literals' general 
discussion that's going on then?

For example I've heard people saying that it encourages bad 'linked 
data' practise by using examples like { 'London' a x:Place } - whereas 
I'd immediately counter with { x:London a 'Place' }.

Surely all of the subjects as literals arguments can be countered with 
'walk round it', and further good practise could be aided by a few 
simple notes on best practise for linked data etc.

Best,

Nathan

Received on Wednesday, 30 June 2010 16:51:38 UTC