W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > October to December 2008

Re: Mapping to RDF Graphs and reification

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 12:35:40 -0500
Message-ID: <29af5e2d0812030935n6445a0d4qe80b9c47980d25b7@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Jeff Thompson" <jeff@thefirst.org>
Cc: public-owl-dev@w3.org

I don't think we call the use of these predicates "reification", or
imply anything other than what is defined in the rdf mapping and the
rdf semantics.

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Jeff Thompson <jeff@thefirst.org> wrote:
> In mapping OWL to RDF graphs, to make an annotation on a triple, the triple
> is reified into separate subject, predicate and object assertions
> similar to reification in RDF.
> _:x rdf:type owl:Annotation
> _:x owl:subject T(y)
> _:x owl:predicate T(AP)
> _:x owl:object T(av)
> But Tim Berners-Lee is still saying that reification in RDF is broken.
> See this message from last year:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2007Jan/0088.html
> If reification in RDF is broken, and OWL adopts the same method for
> quoting a triple so that it can be annotated, does OWL inherit
> the same problems Tim has been talking about for all these years?
> - Jeff
Received on Wednesday, 3 December 2008 17:36:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:58:17 UTC