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 18:42:34 -0500
Message-ID: <29af5e2d0812031542o7400e5b4s93e078041dea7d48@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Jeff Thompson" <jeff@thefirst.org>
Cc: public-owl-dev@w3.org

Just for the record, as OWL 2 is now in last call, if you would like a
formal working group response to this issue,  please send mail to
public-owl-comments@w3.org. Comments on this list from working group
members, including myself, reflect our own views, and not necessarily
those of the working group.

Regards,
Alan

http://www.w3.org/News/2008#item204


On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:35 PM, Alan Ruttenberg
<alanruttenberg@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 23:43:10 GMT

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