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

Re: RDF/XML shorthand for RDF reification

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:57:17 -0400
Message-Id: <D0AE48C4-EEAA-401C-9397-6D6E1C4F3BD3@gmail.com>
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>


On Jun 25, 2008, at 3:50 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

> The point I was making was that using the shorthand results in the
> reification node having a real name, i.e., not being a blank node,  
> which
> messes up lots of things, including parsing and semantics.  Therefore,
> arguments that rely on using the shorthand are not applicable, at  
> least
> without doing some investigation to see whether there is a remedy.

OK. I see this now. Good point. I'll poke around to see if there is a  
remedy.

-Alan

>
> This has nothing to do whether one would like to have the base  
> triple or
> not.
>
> peter
>
> From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: RDF/XML shorthand for RDF reification
> Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:40:03 -0400
>
>> The point I was making is that it that I though that it was  
>> unreasonable
>> for owl not to have the reified triple, and therefore this is well
>> suited ;-)
>>
>> I also pointed out that it nullified the argument that there was an
>> additional parsing burden to parse the "extra" actual reified  
>> triple. In
>> effect the RDF/XML shorthand makes the parsing burden for a fully
>> reified triple only slightly more than for the triple itself.
>>
>> -Alan
>>
>> On Jun 25, 2008, at 2:15 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It appears to me that the RDF/XML shorthand for RDF reification  
>>> creates
>>> named reification, i.e., it names the reified triple.  I believe  
>>> that
>>> this means that its use is not reasonable for OWL.
>>>
>>> peter
Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2008 20:58:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 June 2008 20:58:02 GMT