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

Re: RDF/XML shorthand for RDF reification

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 07:16:46 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20080626.071646.214657889.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: alanruttenberg@gmail.com
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org

1/ The mapping from RDF to the functional syntax has lots of places
   where a blank node is needed or forbidden.  These would have to
   be very carefully checked to see whether the different reified axiom
   mapping causes any problems.  

2/ Changing to named nodes would change the OWL Full semantics.  A
   careful check would have to be made to see whether any interesting or
   useful inferences could change.

peter


From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: RDF/XML shorthand for RDF reification
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:48:45 -0400

> 
> 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.
> 
> Just for the record, how will it mess up parsing and semantics. All of
> our use of reification is for axioms. As I see it, the difference would
> be whether axioms had names in OWL Full (on the semantics side) and on
> the parsing described in table 6 and 17, which seem like they could be
> adjusted to used named instead of blank nodes.
> 
> -Alan
> 
> > Therefore,
> > arguments that rely on using the shorthand are not applicable, at
> least
> > without doing some investigation to see whether there is a remedy.
> >
> > 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 Thursday, 26 June 2008 11:17:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 June 2008 11:17:38 GMT