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

Hello,

I don't want to get into an argument here whether this is really needed or not; however, I wanted to point out that I spoke to quite
a few people asking for the annotation of axioms.

There is yet another solution: we might have axiom annotations in the structural specification, but then disallow (or simply delete
them) when the ontology is exported into OWL RDF.

	Boris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Carroll
> Sent: 21 November 2007 11:37
> To: Boris Motik
> Cc: 'OWL Working Group WG'
> Subject: Re: ISSUE-67 (reification): REPORTED: use of reification in mapping rules is unwise
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Jeremy
>