W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > April to June 2007

Re: Axiom annotations

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 11:03:08 +0100
Message-Id: <87E6C636-51BB-4FD6-A0E3-6CE7D6BFBCCF@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Michael Schneider <m_schnei@gmx.de>, public-owl-dev@w3.org
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>

On 19 Apr 2007, at 10:50, Jeremy Carroll wrote:

> Bijan Parsia wrote:
>> (I'm not aware, for example, of any toolkit which maps reified  
>> triples into  compact form the way e.g, CWM does with the list  
>> vocabulary).
> Jena does.

That's interesting! I didn't know that.

How do you handle incomplete reifictations, e.g., missing an  
rdf:subject or the like?

Is this in all models, or just in some?

> I think the reason reification didn't get thrown out in RDF 2004  
> was that:
> a) Jena supported it
> b) enough Jena users found it useful
> The HP rep was not a fan of reification, but given b) was obliged  
> to represent that point of view; the other voices against  
> reification were not prepared to argue against an installed user base.

I'm prepared! :)

(At least in the sense that I personally strongly discourage it.)

> If we wish to drop reification, we need to have a replacement, and  
> a migration strategy. We didn't have those in 2003/2004, and we  
> still don't.

One interesting question is whether we can get away with introducing  
something in an OWL context. I suspect not. The DAWG skirted this  
with RDF datasets (and named graphs) and, imho, the way BNodes are  

It would be nice to face these issues head on and solve them properly  
in the right part.

The longer we wait the worse it is :) It would have been better to  
have bit that bullet in 2004, again IMHO.

Perhaps it's time for an RDFED :) Get a defacto standard going for,  
oh, contexts or whatever your favorite most wildly implemented  
variant is.

Received on Thursday, 19 April 2007 10:02:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:58:15 UTC