W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > August 2007

Re: RDF 2.0 proposal: contextual properties

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:49:25 +0100
Message-ID: <46C03735.4070603@hpl.hp.com>
To: Michael Schneider <m_schnei@gmx.de>
CC: danbri@danbri.org, W3C SWIG Mailing-List <semantic-web@w3.org>, bdarcus@gmail.com, garret@globalmentor.com, ivan@w3.org

Michael Schneider wrote:
> Dan Brickley wrote:
>> I dislike the existing reification vocabulary. But we can't rewrite 
>> history: those classes and properties are in use. Should we really make
>> http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#predicate and the others be 
>> 404? or at least not describe those terms in the main RDF namespace?
>> I'd be happy to see them depractated using OWL or other terminology
> LOL! You might be interested in the fact, that RDF Reification has just 
> been introduced into the current OWL-1.1 draft for mapping the new 
> concept of annotated (i.e. commented) axioms to RDF syntax:

I do  not think this was a good idea.

The semantics of RDF reification is sufficiently broken that this move 
does not do what it is intended to do, except for the member submission 
docs not having an OWL Full component, so that they do not pretend to 
have an RDF compatible semantics. Given that the (draft) charter 
emphasises the need for such compatibility I am assuming that what to do 
about axiom annotations will be a moderately difficult issue for the new 

I think deprecating reification would usefully mark it as not fit for 
purpose. It would be helpful if such deprecation was aligned with named 
graph standardization, which offers a non-broken replacement.


Hewlett-Packard Limited
registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Monday, 13 August 2007 10:49:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:41:58 UTC