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

On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 14:09 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote:
> On Jun 30, 2010, at 11:50 AM, Nathan wrote:
[ . . . ]
> > 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.
> 
> I wholly agree. Allowing literals in subject position in RDF is a no- 
> brainer. 

I agree, but at the W3C RDF Next Steps workshop over the weekend, I was
surprised to find that there was substantial sentiment *against* having
literals as subjects.  A straw poll showed that of those at the
workshop, this is how people felt about having an RDF working group
charter include literals as subjects:
http://www.w3.org/2010/06/28-rdfn-minutes.html

  Charter MUST include:      0
  Charter SHOULD include:    1
  Charter MAY include:       6
  Charter MUST NOT include: 12

Readers, please note that this was a non-binding, informative STRAW POLL
ONLY -- not a vote.

Pat, I wish you had been there.  ;)

David

> (BTW, it would also immediately solve the 'bugs in the RDF  
> rules' problem.) These arguments against it are nonsensical. The REAL  
> argument against it is that it will mess up OWL-DL, or at any rate it  
> *might* mess up OWL-DL.
> 
> The Description Logic police are still in charge:-)
> 
> Pat
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Nathan
> >
> >
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
> 40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
> Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
> FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


-- 
David Booth, Ph.D.
Cleveland Clinic (contractor)
http://dbooth.org/

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of Cleveland Clinic.