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

RE: ACTION-129 and ACTION-132

From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 12:05:30 +0200
Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A08BE2A1@judith.fzi.de>
To: "Bijan Parsia" <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: "OWL Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
[related to ISSUE-67 and ISSUE-81]

Bijan Parsia wrote:

>Are done enough for me:
[...]
>	http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Reification_Alternatives

[[
  Technique                 Issues
  ---------------------------------------
  Reification               Current solution; people don't like reification
  Reification shadow vocab  Doesn't really improve things over base
reification
]]

An addition: From what I have heard, people do not simply /dislike/ RDF
reification. This alone would not be a valid reason to not use this feature
within OWL. (I have even heard rumors about inconvincible people who dislike
OWL. ;-))

I remember having heard several times that many people would like to change
the semantics of RDF reification, or even drop it completely from the RDF
spec. This would then directly hit OWL. Or the other way around: Having RDF
reification in OWL would be a high barrier for a future RDF WG to change or
drop RDF reification.

It is exactly this issue which would be precluded by using a shadow
vocabulary.
 
Cheers,
Michael



Received on Wednesday, 7 May 2008 10:06:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 May 2008 10:06:09 GMT