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

Re: Axiom annotations

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 10:58:20 +0100
Message-ID: <46288EBC.3030707@hpl.hp.com>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
CC: Michael Schneider <m_schnei@gmx.de>, public-owl-dev@w3.org

Jena Models have a reification style, and at least some variants keep 
partially reified triples in a special place, so that when all the other 
components turn up it can all be put together.

Chris Dollin handles that bit of the implementation (lucky for me!)

Overall, we've spent quite a lot of time and effort supporting 
reification, despite its problems; and at least some users expect us to 
continue to do so. At various stages we toy with the idea of simply 
treating reification as an I/O issue (i.e. the parser and serializer 
know the rdf:ID construct, and you get five triples not one); but I keep 
getting out-voted and we continue to have some magic that allows one 
triple to be stored with a reification ID.

I think it is probably correct that I get outvoted. I think too much of 
the lack of elegance of the solution; the others are listening better to 
the user-base.


Bijan Parsia wrote:
> On 19 Apr 2007, at 11:03, Bijan Parsia wrote:
>> 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?
> By which, of course, I mean "Jena Models".
> Cheers,
> Bijan.

Hewlett-Packard Limited
registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Friday, 20 April 2007 09:59:30 UTC

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