W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > June 2008

Re: One comment on RDF mapping [related to ISSUE 67 and ISSUE 81]

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:44:20 +0100
Message-Id: <82A20AC2-CD27-4D8A-8744-004D145F8477@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Alan Wu <alan.wu@oracle.com>

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.

Received on Friday, 13 June 2008 08:42:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:04 UTC