Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

On Fri, 2010-07-02 at 08:50 +0100, Graham Klyne wrote: > [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) does

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Yves, On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Yves Raimond wrote: > First: this is *not* a dirty hack. > > "Brickley" bif:contains "ckley" is a perfectly valid thing to say. > You could, today, use data: URIs to represent literals with no change to any RDF system. Ian

Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Patrick Durusau wrote: > I make this point in another post this morning but is your argument that > investment by vendors = > I think I just answered it there, before reading this message. Let me know if not! Ian Ian

RE: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Pat Hayes wrote: >Just to clarify, this is a purely syntactic restriction. Allowing >literals in subject position would require **no change at all** to the >RDF semantics. Indeed. And this is probably one of the reasons why several RDF-related standards have already adopted literal subjects. So

Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

Ian, On 7/2/2010 3:39 AM, Ian Davis wrote: On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:44 AM, 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

Re: Subjects as Literals

On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 4:20 AM, Hugh Glaser wrote: > In fact, a question I would like to ask, but suspect that noone who can > answer it is still reading this thread ( :-) ): > For those who implement RDF stores, do you have to do something special to > reject RDF that has literals as subject? I

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Hello Ivan! On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 5:50 AM, Ivan Mikhailov wrote: > Hello Yves, > >> > It's a virtuoso function surfaced as a predicate. >> > "magic predicate" was an initial moniker used at creation time. >> > "bif:contains" doesn't exist in pure triple form etc.. >> >> Why couldn't it? For exam

Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

On 01.07.2010 22:44:48, 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 Well, I think the "broader perspective" that the RDF workshop failed to consider is exactly companies' costs and

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

[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,

Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

Nathan wrote: Ian Davis wrote: On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:44 AM, 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. Your

Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

Ian Davis wrote: On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:44 AM, 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. Your company took a

Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:44 AM, 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. Your company took > a risk, appare

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Pat Hayes wrote: On Jul 2, 2010, at 12:07 AM, Nathan wrote: Pat Hayes wrote: On Jul 1, 2010, at 11:49 PM, Nathan wrote: 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

Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

On Jul 2, 2010, at 12:29 AM, Paul Gearon wrote: Hi Pat, On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Pat Hayes wrote: Hey, guys. It is perfectly fine to use OWL properties in RDF. The RDF specs actually encourage this kind of semantic borrowing, it was always part of the RDF design to have this happe

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

On Jul 2, 2010, at 12:07 AM, Nathan wrote: Pat Hayes wrote: On Jul 1, 2010, at 11:49 PM, Nathan wrote: 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 pure

Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

Paul Gearon wrote: Hi Pat, On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Pat Hayes wrote: Hey, guys. It is perfectly fine to use OWL properties in RDF. The RDF specs actually encourage this kind of semantic borrowing, it was always part of the RDF design to have this happen. So no need to have a version of

Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

Hi Pat, On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Pat Hayes wrote: > Hey, guys. It is perfectly fine to use OWL properties in RDF. The RDF specs > actually encourage this kind of semantic borrowing, it was always part of > the RDF design to have this happen. So no need to have a version of > owl:sameAs in

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Pat Hayes wrote: On Jul 1, 2010, at 11:49 PM, Nathan wrote: 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

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

On Jul 1, 2010, at 11:49 PM, Nathan wrote: 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 in subject posit

Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

Hey, guys. It is perfectly fine to use OWL properties in RDF. The RDF specs actually encourage this kind of semantic borrowing, it was always part of the RDF design to have this happen. So no need to have a version of owl:sameAs in the RDFS namespace. Just use the OWL one. Pat On Jul 1, 2

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Hello Yves, > > It's a virtuoso function surfaced as a predicate. > > "magic predicate" was an initial moniker used at creation time. > > "bif:contains" doesn't exist in pure triple form etc.. > > Why couldn't it? For example, you may want to express exactly what > triple lead you to give a parti

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

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 in subject position would require **no change at all** to the

Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

On Jul 1, 2010, at 2:03 PM, Tim Finin wrote: On 7/1/10 2:51 PM, 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 "1

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

On Jul 1, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Yves Raimond wrote: On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Henry Story wrote: On 1 Jul 2010, at 16:35, Kingsley Idehen wrote: Yves Raimond wrote: Hello Kingsley! [snip] IMHO an emphatic NO. RDF is about constructing structured descriptions where "Subjects" h

Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

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. Your company took a risk, apparently. IMO it was a bad risk, as you could have imp

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

s dung in the road. Walk round it. Could we also apply that to the 'subjects as literals' general discussion that's going on then? For example I've heard people saying that it encourages bad 'linked data' practise by using examples like { 'London' a

Re: Subjects as Literals

On Jul 1, 2010, at 5:34 AM, Steve Harris wrote: On 2010-07-01, at 03:20, Hugh Glaser wrote: In fact, a question I would like to ask, but suspect that noone who can answer it is still reading this thread ( :-) ): For those who implement RDF stores, do you have to do something special to re

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

ter 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 posi

Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

Toby Inkster wrote: On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 13:05:54 -0400 Kingsley Idehen wrote: W3C only officially acknowledges RDF/XML as Markup Language for RDF Data Model. I hear this time and time again, but it is not true anymore. XHTML+RDFa 1.0 became a W3C Recommendation in October 2008. It h

Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 13:05:54 -0400 Kingsley Idehen wrote: > W3C only officially acknowledges RDF/XML as Markup Language for RDF > Data Model. I hear this time and time again, but it is not true anymore. XHTML+RDFa 1.0 became a W3C Recommendation in October 2008. It has the same publication stat

Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

Dan Brickley wrote: On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 11:35 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: The sequence went something like this. TimBL Design Issues Note. and SPARQL emergence. Before that, RDF was simply in the dark ages. It's only simple if you weren't there :) You mean you didn't se

Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Nathan wrote: > Something else that keeps coming up, a subset of owl always comes in to > conversations, obviously owl:sameAs - there was a proposal from one Jim > Hendler [1] at a RDF workshop thing to perhaps do something about moving > these up a level to RDFS.

Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 11:35 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: >>> The sequence went something like this. >>> >>> TimBL Design Issues Note. and SPARQL emergence. Before that, RDF was >>> simply >>> in the dark ages. >>> >> >> It's only simple if you weren't there :) > > You mean you didn't see me lurking

Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

Dan Brickley wrote: On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: The sequence went something like this. TimBL Design Issues Note. and SPARQL emergence. Before that, RDF was simply in the dark ages. It's only simple if you weren't there :) You mean you didn't see me lu

Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > The sequence went something like this. > > TimBL Design Issues Note. and SPARQL emergence. Before that, RDF was simply > in the dark ages. It's only simple if you weren't there :) cheers, Dan

Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

Antoine Zimmermann wrote: Jeremy, et al., I think people are already showing the money but they do it 2 cents after 2 cents ;-) Here is my little 2 cent contribution. To start with, I am on the side of the people in favour of allowing literals in the subject position. I've read the discuss

Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

Jeremy, et al., I think people are already showing the money but they do it 2 cents after 2 cents ;-) Here is my little 2 cent contribution. To start with, I am on the side of the people in favour of allowing literals in the subject position. I've read the discussion and pondered the argum

Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

Dear Tim, Le 01/07/2010 20:03, Tim Finin a écrit : On 7/1/10 2:51 PM, 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 "

Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

On 7/1/2010 11:51 AM, 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. ? I couldn't because chunks o

Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

Jiří Procházka wrote: On 07/01/2010 09:11 PM, Henry Story wrote: On 1 Jul 2010, at 21:03, Tim Finin wrote: On 7/1/10 2:51 PM, 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

Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

On 07/01/2010 09:11 PM, Henry Story wrote: > > Social Web Architect > http://bblfish.net/ > > On 1 Jul 2010, at 21:03, Tim Finin wrote: > >> On 7/1/10 2:51 PM, Henry Story wrote: >>> ... >>> So just as a matter of interest, imagine a new syntax came along that >>> allowed literals in >>> subjec

Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

Social Web Architect http://bblfish.net/ On 1 Jul 2010, at 21:03, Tim Finin wrote: > On 7/1/10 2:51 PM, 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 tu

Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

Bernard Vatant wrote: Hi Dan, Kingsley Happy to see you expose clearly those things that have been also in the corner of my mind since Kingsley started to hammer the EAV drum a while ago. I've been also in training and introduction to RDF insisted on the fact that RDF was somehow just an av

Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

On 7/1/10 2:51 PM, 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. ? So that really you'd hav

Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

Dan Brickley wrote: (cc: list trimmed to LOD list.) On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: Cut long story short. [-cut-] We have an EAV graph model, URIs, triples and a variety of data representation mechanisms. N3 is one of those, and its basically the foundati

Re: Subjects as Literals

On Jul 1, 2010, at 10:12 AM, Robert Sanderson wrote: On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Pat Hayes wrote: 3. Dates represented as character strings in some known date format other than XSD can be asserted to be the same as a 'real' date by writing things like "01-02-1481" sameDateAs "010

Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

On 1 Jul 2010, at 20:47, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > >> On 1 Jul 2010, at 17:38, Jeremy Carroll wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> I have loads and loads of code, both open source and commercial that >>> assumes throughout that a node in a subject position is not a literal, and >>> a node in a predicate pos

Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

On 1 Jul 2010, at 17:38, Jeremy Carroll wrote: I have loads and loads of code, both open source and commercial that assumes throughout that a node in a subject position is not a literal, and a node in a predicate position is a URI node. On 7/1/2010 8:46 AM, Henry Story wrote: but is that

Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

Hi Dan, Kingsley Happy to see you expose clearly those things that have been also in the corner of my mind since Kingsley started to hammer the EAV drum a while ago. I've been also in training and introduction to RDF insisted on the fact that RDF was somehow just an avatar of the old paradigm EAV

Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

On 7/1/2010 10:18 AM, Yves Raimond wrote: Or, an even simpler use-case: storing metaphones for strings in a triple store. OK - and why are these use cases not reasonably easily addressable using the N-ary predicate design pattern with a two place ltieral predicate i.e. instead of Lit1

Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

(cc: list trimmed to LOD list.) On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > Cut long story short. [-cut-] > We have an EAV graph model, URIs, triples and a variety of data > representation mechanisms. N3 is one of those, and its basically the > foundation that bootstrapped the Hou

Lexvo.org - a semiotic approach to Re: Subjects as Literals

Hi all Re-naming the subject to try and get out of the general noise :) I'm been following this noisy thread with amazement. I've no clear position on the issue, just take the opportunity to attract the attention of the community to the work of Gerard de Melo at Lexvo.org [1] which has been updat

Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

Or, an even simpler use-case: storing metaphones for strings in a triple store. y On 1 Jul 2010 18:15, "Yves Raimond" wrote: Hello Jeremy! One example on the top of my head. You have a 'magic predicate' such as Virtuoso bif:contains, but slightly more expansive than that (a large index lookup,

Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

Hello Jeremy! One example on the top of my head. You have a 'magic predicate' such as Virtuoso bif:contains, but slightly more expansive than that (a large index lookup, a difficult mathematical computation or fuzzy literal search, etc). If you were able to store the result in RDF once that magic

Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

Nathan wrote: Dan, Jeremy, Pat, Henry, Michael, Kinglsey, Ivan, ack.. everyone, Part of me feels like I should apologise for bringing this to the mailing list (even though it was inevitable) - this is all getting out of scope and the last thing we need is one of the most critical communities

Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

Nathan wrote: Dan, Jeremy, Pat, Henry, Michael, Kinglsey, Ivan, ack.. everyone, Part of me feels like I should apologise for bringing this to the mailing list (even though it was inevitable) - this is all getting out of scope and the last thing we need is one of the most critical communities

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 5:45 PM, Henry Story wrote: > > On 1 Jul 2010, at 18:18, Yves Raimond wrote: > >>> >>> In any case RDF Semantics does, I believe, >>> allow literals in subject position. It is just that many many syntaxes >>> don't allow that to be expressed, >> >> >> It doesn't seem to be a

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

On 1 Jul 2010, at 18:18, Yves Raimond wrote: >> >> In any case RDF Semantics does, I believe, >> allow literals in subject position. It is just that many many syntaxes >> don't allow that to be expressed, > > > It doesn't seem to be allowed in the RDF semantics: > http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-conc

Typo Fix: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Kingsley Idehen wrote: Yves Raimond wrote: Hello! IMHO an emphatic NO. RDF is about constructing structured descriptions where "Subjects" have Identifiers in the form of Name References (which may or many resolve to Structured Representations of Referents carried or borne by Descriptor

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Yves Raimond wrote: Hello! IMHO an emphatic NO. RDF is about constructing structured descriptions where "Subjects" have Identifiers in the form of Name References (which may or many resolve to Structured Representations of Referents carried or borne by Descriptor Docs/Resources). An "Identi

Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

Sandro Hawke wrote: On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 17:10 +0100, Nathan wrote: In all honesty, if this doesn't happen, I personally will have no choice but to move to N3 for the bulk of things, and hope for other serializations of N3 to come along. RIF (which became a W3C Recommendation last week) is N

Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Sandro Hawke wrote: > On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 17:10 +0100, Nathan wrote: >> In all honesty, if this doesn't happen, I personally will have no choice >> but to move to N3 for the bulk of things, and hope for other >> serializations of N3 to come along. > > RIF (which b

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 5:22 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > Henry Story wrote: >> >> On 1 Jul 2010, at 16:35, Kingsley Idehen wrote: >> >> >>> >>> Yves Raimond wrote: >>> Hello Kingsley! [snip] > > IMHO an emphatic NO. > > RDF is about constructing s

Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

Saw them, smiled, threw them in the bin. I can't present a use case for "Literals as Subject", but I did have a relevant experience recently when having written a reasoner for sindice I was briefly intrigued to discover that executing some owl rules leads to a production of statements where li

Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 17:10 +0100, Nathan wrote: > In all honesty, if this doesn't happen, I personally will have no choice > but to move to N3 for the bulk of things, and hope for other > serializations of N3 to come along. RIF (which became a W3C Recommendation last week) is N3, mutated (in so

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Henry Story wrote: On 1 Jul 2010, at 16:35, Kingsley Idehen wrote: Yves Raimond wrote: Hello Kingsley! [snip] IMHO an emphatic NO. RDF is about constructing structured descriptions where "Subjects" have Identifiers in the form of Name References (which may or many resolve

Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

Excellent point! I can easily come up with examples where current SPARQL capabilities are too limiting or where atomic list nodes would tremendously help. But for literals-as-subjects, I do not see the need. It might also depend on how you interpret RDF: (1) A triple is an element in a relation

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Henry Story wrote: > > On 1 Jul 2010, at 16:35, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > >> Yves Raimond wrote: >>> Hello Kingsley! >>> >>> >>> [snip] >>> >>> IMHO an emphatic NO. RDF is about constructing structured descriptions where "Subjects" have Identifier

Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > > I am still not hearing any argument to justify the costs of literals as > subjects > > I have loads and loads of code, both open source and commercial that assumes > throughout that a node in a subject position is not a literal, and a node

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Hello! >> >>> >>> IMHO an emphatic NO. >>> >>> RDF is about constructing structured descriptions where "Subjects" have >>> Identifiers in the form of Name References (which may or many resolve to >>> Structured Representations of Referents carried or borne by Descriptor >>> Docs/Resources). An "Id

Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

Dan, Jeremy, Pat, Henry, Michael, Kinglsey, Ivan, ack.. everyone, Part of me feels like I should apologise for bringing this to the mailing list (even though it was inevitable) - this is all getting out of scope and the last thing we need is one of the most critical communities in what's a min

Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

RE getting "a full list of the benefits," surely if it's being discussed here, "Literals as Subjects" must be *somebody's* Real(tm) Problem and the benefits are inherent in its solution? And if it isn't, um, why is it being discussed here? ;) On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Henry Story wrote: >

Re: Subjects as Literals

Hi, I just want to throw my 2 cents in this discussion. I posted a comment in October 2004 related to "Smart Literal"proposal in Jena Discussion Group. http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/jena-dev/message/11581 Best regards Stephane Fellah smartRealm LLC

Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

Jeremy, the point is to start the process, but put it on a low burner, so that in 4-5 years time, you will be able to sell a whole new RDF+ suite to your customers with this new benefit. ;-) On 1 Jul 2010, at 17:38, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > > I am still not hearing any argument to justify the c

Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

gt; Subject: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals) > Resent-From: Linked Data community > Resent-Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 15:38:42 + > > > I am still not hearing any argument to justify the costs of literals as > subjects > > I have loads and loads of code, bot

Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

I am still not hearing any argument to justify the costs of literals as subjects I have loads and loads of code, both open source and commercial that assumes throughout that a node in a subject position is not a literal, and a node in a predicate position is a URI node. Of course, the "cor

Re: Subjects as Literals

On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Pat Hayes wrote: 3. Dates represented as character strings in some known date format other > than XSD can be asserted to be the same as a 'real' date by writing things > like > > "01-02-1481" sameDateAs "01022010"^^xsd:date . > "01-02-1481" isDateIn :MuslimCalenda

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

On 1 Jul 2010, at 16:35, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > Yves Raimond wrote: >> Hello Kingsley! >> >> >> [snip] >> >> >>> IMHO an emphatic NO. >>> >>> RDF is about constructing structured descriptions where "Subjects" have >>> Identifiers in the form of Name References (which may or many resolve t

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

just about impossible to guarantee that messes can't happen when all you are doing is describing structures in an open-world setting. But I think the cure is to stop thinking that possible-messes are a problem to be solved. So, there is dung in the road. Walk round it. Could w

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Yves Raimond wrote: Hello Kingsley! [snip] IMHO an emphatic NO. RDF is about constructing structured descriptions where "Subjects" have Identifiers in the form of Name References (which may or many resolve to Structured Representations of Referents carried or borne by Descriptor Docs/Reso

Re: Subjects as Literals

Thanks Steve. Sort of settles the issue for me. Yes, I see RDF as simply a graph, and so can't understand why rdfs:label is any more sensible than rdfs:labels (as an inverse of rdfs:label)- it looks like a convention on the directed graph to me, and arbitrary. But as others have pointed out, pragm

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Hello! On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 3:41 AM, Pat Hayes wrote: > > On Jun 30, 2010, at 4:25 PM, Toby Inkster wrote: > >> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 13:18:25 -0700 >> Jeremy Carroll wrote: >> >>> Here are the reasons I voted this way: >>> >>> - it will mess up RDF/XML >> >> No it won't - it will just mean that

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Hello, Please, don't extend the existing model, for two reasons. >From implementor's POV, arbitrary literals are bad for any sort of indexing. >From AI specialist's POV, literals are simply not subjects. Can a number or a string _act_? Can you provide a living specimen of it? The feature is use

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Hello Kingsley! [snip] > > IMHO an emphatic NO. > > RDF is about constructing structured descriptions where "Subjects" have > Identifiers in the form of Name References (which may or many resolve to > Structured Representations of Referents carried or borne by Descriptor > Docs/Resources). An "I

RE: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Nathan wrote: >re OWL DL, does it have to consider every triple in a 'graph'? No, and it cannot do so in general. Strictly speaking, OWL DL doesn't even have a notion of RDF triples or RDF graphs. OWL DL "thinks" in terms of constructs such as axioms and class expressions. The genuine "abstract"

RE: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology] On Jun 30, 2010, at 3:12 PM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote: >> Intuitively, I would expect each subject literal to have a unique >> identity. For example, I would want to annotate a particular >> instance of "abc&quo

RE: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Henry Story wrote: > On 30 Jun 2010, at 21:09, Pat Hayes wrote: >> 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. I guess, the Descriptio

Re: Subjects as Literals

On 2010-07-01, at 03:20, Hugh Glaser wrote: > In fact, a question I would like to ask, but suspect that noone who can > answer it is still reading this thread ( :-) ): > For those who implement RDF stores, do you have to do something special to > reject RDF that has literals as subject? In my defe

Re: Subjects as Literals

+1 to the points below. I think one should point out that rdf semantics allows them, and that in an open world they just can't be excluded. In N3 literals as subjects are often used. And the cwm repository is a good place to look for examples @prefix log: .

Re: Subjects as Literals

Hello everybody, I think the main issues are already discussed. Hence, here are some summarized notes of my thoughts: 1. We shouldn't propagate that a user (always a machine or human beeing) has to go this way and not the other one. Leaving this decision by the user, leads to more user satis

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

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 &#

Re: Subjects as Literals

On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 22:14 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote: > On Jun 30, 2010, at 8:14 PM, Ross Singer wrote: > > > I suppose my questions here would be: > > > > 1) What's the use case of a literal as subject statement (besides > > being an academic exercise)? > > A few off the top of my head. > > 1. Ti

Re: Subjects as Literals

How about internationalization? If the subject is a literal, how would translations be associated? On Jul 1, 2010, at 5:14 , Pat Hayes wrote: > > On Jun 30, 2010, at 8:14 PM, Ross Singer wrote: > >> I suppose my questions here would be: >> >> 1) What's the use case of a literal as subject sta

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Jun 30, 2010, at 11:50 AM, Nathan wrote: [ . . . ] 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 p

Re: Subjects as Literals

On Jun 30, 2010, at 8:14 PM, Ross Singer wrote: I suppose my questions here would be: 1) What's the use case of a literal as subject statement (besides being an academic exercise)? A few off the top of my head. 1. Titles of books, music and other works might have properties such as the da

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

On Jun 30, 2010, at 4:25 PM, Toby Inkster wrote: On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 13:18:25 -0700 Jeremy Carroll wrote: Here are the reasons I voted this way: - it will mess up RDF/XML No it won't - it will just mean that RDF/XML is only capable of representing a subset of RDF graphs. And guess what? T

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

impossible to guarantee that messes can't happen when all you are doing is describing structures in an open-world setting. But I think the cure is to stop thinking that possible-messes are a problem to be solved. So, there is dung in the road. Walk round it. Could we also ap

Re: Subjects as Literals

On Jun 30, 2010, at 8:59 PM, Ross Singer wrote: On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 9:36 PM, Hugh Glaser wrote: Great - more crystallization of the problem. On 01/07/2010 02:14, "Ross Singer" wrote: I suppose my questions here would be: 1) What's the use case of a literal as subject statement (besi

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

On Jun 30, 2010, at 2:52 PM, David Booth wrote: On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 14:09 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote: On Jun 30, 2010, at 11:50 AM, Nathan wrote: [ . . . ] Surely all of the subjects as literals arguments can be countered with 'walk round it', and further good practise could be aide

Re: Subjects as Literals

On Jun 30, 2010, at 2:31 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: David Booth wrote: On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 14:30 -0400, Kingsley Idehen wrote: Nathan wrote: Pat Hayes wrote: [ . . . ] Surely all of the subjects as literals arguments can be countered with 'walk round it', and further goo

<    1   2   3   >