- From: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 18:47:46 +0000
- To: Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetil@kjernsmo.net>
- Cc: Raphaƫl Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>, semantic-web@w3.org
On Tue, 9 Nov 2010 11:24:56 +0100 Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetil@kjernsmo.net> wrote: > OMG! That additional complexity is something I would certainly want > to avoid. I guess there may be good OWL reasons why one would want to > do that, but I cannot think of any good reasons why you would want to > put the data type into the predicate like this in most cases. Just > think about the horror of writing this in RDFa... And how it also > becomes an extra line in a SPARQL query. There are legitimate use cases for it. OWL Time models instants and periods of time as non-literals to allow relationships to be drawn between them, and for them to be annotated in detail. e.g. [ a owltime:Instant ] :before [ a owltime:Instant ] . If literals were being used, RDF's non-literal-subject restriction would not allow such a statement to be used. However, this complexity is overkill for most use cases. And that's why I want to start a new event vocabulary from scratch - well, by subclassing existing event vocabularies - something dead easy to embed in web pages as RDFa, but that covers most use cases. -- Toby A Inkster <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Tuesday, 9 November 2010 18:48:09 UTC