On 7/1/2010 8:44 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
Jeremy, your argument is perfectly sound from your company's POV, but
not from a broader perspective. Of course, any change will incur costs
by those who have based their assumptions upon no change happening
I was asking for the economic benefit of the ch
On Behalf Of Nathan wrote on Friday, July 02:
>Pat Hayes wrote:
>> On Jul 1, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Yves Raimond wrote:
>>> "A literal may be the object of an RDF statement, but not the subject
>>> or the predicate."
>>
>> Just to clarify, this is a purely syntactic restriction. Allowing
>> literals i
Henry Story wrote:
>So just as a matter of interest, imagine a new syntax came along that
>allowed literals in
>subject position, could you not write a serialiser for it that turned
>
>"123" length 3 .
>
>Into
>
>_:b owl:sameAs "123";
> length 3.
But this is not an equivalent translation in RDF
