Re: Axiom annotations

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