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.
-Alan

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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 27 March 2013 09:32:56 GMT