On Jul 1, 2010, at 3:38 AM, Henry Story wrote:
On 30 Jun 2010, at 21:09, Pat Hayes wrote:
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.
I wholly agree. Allowing literals in subject position in RDF is a
no-brainer. (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:-)
I agree that literals can be subjects. In any case they are, because
you just can take an inverse function from a thing to a string, and
you have it.
But I do think
'London' a x:Place
is bad design because really 'London' is a string and not a place.
Absolutely. That triple plus a reasonably sensible ontology of places
plus a basic RDFS reasoner should flag a contradiction fairly directly.
Pat
Now of course x:Place my be the collection of names of places in
english, in which case it is ok. So it is difficult to say just like
that. There would have to be quite a lot of education in the when is
it right to use strings as subjects space.
Henry
Pat
------------------------------------------------------------
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