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

Jiří Procházka wrote:
>
> I wonder, when using owl:sameAs or related, to "name" literals to be
> able to say other useful thing about them in normal triples (datatype,
> language, etc) does it break OWL DL 
yes it does

> (or any other formalism which is
> base of some ontology extending RDF semantics)?

Not OWL full
>  Or would it if
> rdf:sameAs was introduced?
>   

It would still break OWL DL
> Best,
> Jiri
>   
OWL DL is orthogonal to this issue. The OWL DLers already prohibit 
certain RDF - specifically the workaround for not having literal as 
subjects. So they are neutral.
I reiterate that I agree whole-heartedly with the technical arguments 
for making this change; however the economic case is missing.

Jeremy

Received on Wednesday, 30 June 2010 22:46:19 UTC