- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: 2018年11月22日 07:31:38 -0800
- To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Cc: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>, "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@miscoranda.com>, Olaf Hartig <olaf.hartig@liu.se>, Axel Polleres <axel@polleres.net>
- Message-ID: <CAFfrAFoCeAuezWC6o_14pS_n_H3heQtjdg=O-DPCL+sG+HZYVQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 2018年11月22日, 05:04 Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org wrote: > > > On 2018-11 -21, at 22:40, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote: > > 7. Literals as subjects. RDF should allow "anyone to say > anything about anything", but RDF does not currently allow > literals as subjects! (One work-around is to use -- you guessed > it -- a blank node, which in turn is asserted to be owl:sameAs > the literal.) This deficiency may seem unimportant relative > to other RDF difficulties, but it is a peculiar anomaly that > may have greater impact than we realize. Imagine an *average* > developer, new to RDF, who unknowingly violates this rule and > is puzzled when it doesn't work. Negative experiences like > that drive people away. Even more insidiously, imagine this > developer tries to CONSTRUCT triples using a SPARQL query, > and some of those triples happen to have literals in the > subject position. Per the SPARQL standard, those triples will > be silently eliminated from the results,[13] which could lead > to silently producing wrong answers from the application -- > the worst of all possible bugs. > > > Agreed. > > I thought we had fixed that in some later spec but I guess not. > https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-generalized-rdf is the closest afaik, maybe parts of the Semantics and SPARQL specs are quietly permissive too, I forget... All code I have written, like cwm and rdflib.js, allows the same things in > subject and object positions. Life is too short for arbitrary unnecessary > asymmetry. > > timbl > >
Received on Thursday, 22 November 2018 15:32:14 UTC