Re: Extending RDFS, property-classes

Jiri,

Note that the common term for this is "reification", not "promotion".

Your proposed ontology, IMO, has somewhat limited utility. It does  
allow generalization of an inference rule to generate both sets of  
annotations from one or the other, but that doesn't solve the  
fundamental missing abstraction. It would seem somewhat ridiculous to  
me to have every ontology include both reified and direct forms... for  
what end? Surely the reified form does everything the direct form does?

OWL 2 cuts this knot by allowing direct annotations of assertions, but  
I don't know a single customer who's thinking about using it (a  
chicken/egg problem). (For that matter, I don't know of any widespread  
deployments of OWL 1; the most common situation in my experience is  
RDFS + simple reasoning.)

-R


On  9 Feb 2009, at 12:54 PM, Jiri Prochazka wrote:

> This is a good thing, but unfortunately there is no link between the
> properties and the class, which makes the data tagged with the
> properties and the data tagged with the class, like they each used
> different non-interlinked vocabularies...