- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 14:27:07 +0100
- To: Steve Harris <swh@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-lod@w3.org, semantic-web at W3C <semantic-web@w3c.org>
On 9 Jul 2008, at 13:38, Steve Harris wrote: >> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/ >> Annotation_System#Probabilistic_extension > > That looks interesting, but I can't read OWL(2) syntax, so can't > imagine what the interpretation in triples would look like. Here's an example: http://pellet.owldl.com/ontologies/penguin_prob.owl > Yves' problem could be solved with "hand-reification" (I'm sure > there's a proper term for it), a la: > > <http://example.org/a> :similarToConfidence [ > :similarTo <http://example.org/b> ; > :confidence 0.4 ; > ] . It's on the reification chart. The problem is that there's no standard mapping into an axiom. SWRL works this way, and, really, so does OWL. THere are loads of problem with that in OWL :( > That doesn't have any strict interpretation of course, but it is at > least more convenient to work with at an RDF level. > >> You might also look at my reificaiton table: >> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Reification_Alternatives > > I like the data URI one, though it has some issues, possibly not as > many as the other schemes. > > Named Graphs are somewhat blessed by the SPARQL GRAPH operator - > it's doesn't give all of the named graphs idea but gives enough. No syntax :( > Probably not useful for annotations on small units of RDF though. Yeah :( Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2008 13:25:50 UTC