- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:44:20 +0100
- To: Alan Wu <alan.wu@oracle.com>
- Cc: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 13 Jun 2008, at 02:49, Alan Wu wrote: > Bijan, > > Sorry for the delayed response. > > Seems that we don't quite agree on the how much additional cost by > leaving axiom triples out. > I am glad to see at least we agree that it requires a more > sophisticated implementation. :) Can I ask the WG then to simply > the mapping so that unsophisticated developers like me > have an easier time implementing OWL2 in a commercial product. I > believe that is a very reasonable > request. It needs to be balanced by other considerations. As I've pointed out, it's not clear at all to me that in the situation you've outlined (lots of annotated triples in a large kb) that you can *avoid* the need for a sophisticated implementation. If people are querying for annotations, you have to do something to cope with mapping the reified triples to the non-reified one. Better to do that at load time. Plus, there's a clear bit of advice for people to optimize loading: Don't randomize your triples. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Friday, 13 June 2008 08:42:10 UTC