W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > November 2007

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

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 11:36:54 +0000
Message-ID: <47441856.8010800@hpl.hp.com>
To: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
CC: "'OWL Working Group WG'" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

Boris Motik wrote:
> 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

A different approach would be to decide that we cannot address the use 
cases for annotations of axioms yet, and to postpone related issues, and 
make do with the OWL 1.0 solution.

Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 11:37:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:00 UTC