- From: Jon Hanna <jon@hackcraft.net>
- Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 10:14:55 -0000
- To: "'Graham Klyne'" <GK@ninebynine.org>, "'Tim Berners-Lee'" <timbl@w3.org>
- Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>
> >I agree that the restriction on URIs in the subject in RDF > is a mistake. > >I forgot what happened to that comment process wise. > > It was a language extension that we did not feel was justified by the > charter and/or specific difficulties with RDF as defined. > Generally, it > was felt to be a Good Thing, but not our place to bless it. > > But since, I note that the OWL spec (DL/Lite at least) makes > some quite > severe assumptions about the nature of subject nodes, in relation to > structures like class restrictions. I don't know how much > work it would > take to have OWL handle literal subjects in any useful way. On the other hand OWL Full allows for some convoluted statements which do allow one to make statements about a literal (by first saying that literal is the same as the resource identified by a URI and then using that URI in the subject). Allowing something, but only through convoluted means, is probably a Bad Thing. Whether this is truly allowed, and how much it is blessed, is a question that comes up quite a lot on the relevant freenode IRC channels. Regards, Jon Hanna <http://www.selkieweb.com/>
Received on Tuesday, 2 November 2004 10:14:57 UTC