- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 18:59:02 +0100
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, public-owl-dev@w3.org
On Apr 17, 2007, at 5:30 PM, Jeremy Carroll wrote: [snip] > An issue is the annotations on axioms, using reification in the > current OWL 1.1 specs. I appreciate that this is semantically > correct - the annotation is about the axiom, and not about some > participant in the axiom; [snip] To be extra clear, it's not so much an issue of semantic correctness, just that it is very difficult to annotate a statement or set of statements in RDF. Reification, named graphs (which are an extension), "contexts", literals with RDF content, and magic URIs (i.e., uris that somehow encode the statement) seem to be the choices. I have a lonely preference for literals, but the toolkits have problems with them (and there are namespace issues I think you've mentioned...you could use an alternative syntax but then the toolkits just die faster :)). Of course, none of this is particularly difficult in the functional or xml syntax. So, another choice is to throw them out when you compile an RDF version (say for publication). Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 17 April 2007 17:59:07 UTC