RE: ACTION-129 and ACTION-132

[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