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

Re: nonmon mapping and punning

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 07:32:07 +0000
Message-Id: <25CD3F55-BC93-4D39-88BC-BEBD43C9013A@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: "Web Ontology Language ((OWL)) Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
To: "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de>

On Mar 4, 2008, at 5:31 PM, Michael Schneider wrote:

> [related to ISSUE-68]
[snip]
> I don't think that Jeremy really meant that it is technically  
> impossible,
> but more that it doesn't match the general concepts behind Jena,  
> which is an
> RDF framework after all.
[snip]

Which has specific support for specifically this sort of feature.  
This is the part I don't understand.

[snip]

Michael...I'm sorry, but I don't quite see what all that had to do  
with the reactive event framework. In particular, I don't quite see  
why you detoured into the "OWL View" part of Jena.

Afaict, Jena has specific support which makes it quite easy to delete  
some other triples when you add a triple. I point to it again:
	http://jena.sourceforge.net/how-to/event-handler.html

So, I fail to see how the non-monotonicity of the mapping is a deep  
problem for Jena or that Jena, in principle and by design, lacks the  
facilities to handle this. Note that since Jena has add and delete  
operations, even without this sort of event listeners, it would be  
*technically* possible, perhaps straightforward in the naive case, to  
handle the non-monotonicity of the mapping at the parser level. The  
unpleasant bit there is that one would have to use a shadowed or  
variant add statement. With event support, you don't have to do that.

(I'm not arguing pro or con the way the mapping is right now, I'm  
merely trying to figure out the impact on implementations.)

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Thursday, 6 March 2008 07:32:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 6 March 2008 07:32:22 GMT