- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:17:03 -0400
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
On Jun 26, 2008, at 10:43 AM, Bijan Parsia wrote: >> What about the other way around - the "same" axiom having multiple >> differently named reifications - this would seem to be analogous to >> the current bnode case? > > Seems worse. To make the analogy clearer: imagine you declared, by fiat, that any s,p,o where p=rdf:type and o=owl:Axiom was a bnode and the identifier should be understood as bnode identifier. Then the rest of the parsing would be the same, I think. I'm not suggesting that one actual does the declaration for real - just trying to establish what the delta would be from current parsing to parsing with identifiers instead of bnodes in this specific case. This is worse in the sense that you have to do a bit more work, but not worse in a particularly damaging way as far as I can tell. -Alan
Received on Thursday, 26 June 2008 15:17:48 UTC