- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 11:03:08 +0100
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Michael Schneider <m_schnei@gmx.de>, public-owl-dev@w3.org
On 19 Apr 2007, at 10:50, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > Bijan Parsia wrote: >> (I'm not aware, for example, of any toolkit which maps reified >> triples into compact form the way e.g, CWM does with the list >> vocabulary). > > Jena does. That's interesting! I didn't know that. How do you handle incomplete reifictations, e.g., missing an rdf:subject or the like? Is this in all models, or just in some? > I think the reason reification didn't get thrown out in RDF 2004 > was that: > a) Jena supported it > b) enough Jena users found it useful > > The HP rep was not a fan of reification, but given b) was obliged > to represent that point of view; the other voices against > reification were not prepared to argue against an installed user base. I'm prepared! :) (At least in the sense that I personally strongly discourage it.) > If we wish to drop reification, we need to have a replacement, and > a migration strategy. We didn't have those in 2003/2004, and we > still don't. One interesting question is whether we can get away with introducing something in an OWL context. I suspect not. The DAWG skirted this with RDF datasets (and named graphs) and, imho, the way BNodes are interpeted/presented. It would be nice to face these issues head on and solve them properly in the right part. The longer we wait the worse it is :) It would have been better to have bit that bullet in 2004, again IMHO. Perhaps it's time for an RDFED :) Get a defacto standard going for, oh, contexts or whatever your favorite most wildly implemented variant is. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Thursday, 19 April 2007 10:02:26 UTC