[cc's trimmed]
I'm with Jeremy here, the problem's economic not technical.
If we could introduce subjects-as-literals in a way that:
(a) doesn't invalidate any existing RDF, and
(b) doesn't permit the generation of RDF/XML that existing applications cannot
parse,
then I think there's a possible way forward.
#g
--
BTW, which list is the most appropriate for this discussion? I seem to be
getting 4 copies of some messages!
Jeremy Carroll wrote:
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
