RE: ISSUE-67 (reification): REPORTED: use of reification in mapping rules is unwise

Hello,

I actually really dislike reification myself; unfortunately, I don't see how to get around these issues in certain cases. The
problem is that sometimes you need more than binary associations between objects.

For example, consider the problem of annotating a SubClassOf axiom. In RDF, you write <x rdfs:subClassof y>. But you've just used
both x and y; there is no place for an annotation.

The only solution I see is not to use reification, but to introduce yet separate vocabulary and represent ternary relations more
explicitly. I am really open to any suggestions on this point, because I do see the point that reification is ugly.

Boris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of OWL Working
> Group Issue Tracker
> Sent: 20 November 2007 15:01
> To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
> Subject: ISSUE-67 (reification): REPORTED: use of reification in mapping rules is unwise
> 
> 
> 
> ISSUE-67 (reification): REPORTED: use of reification in mapping rules is unwise
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/
> 
> Raised by: Jeremy Carroll
> On product:
> 
> 
> The mapping rules use RDF reification.
> 
> However, RDF reification has very weak semantics, making it difficult to achieve an OWL Full
> semantics that works.
> 
> It is unlikely that  RDF graph's constructed with such rules mean what is intended.
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 20 November 2007 18:46:41 UTC