- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 20:32:53 +0100
- To: Michael Schneider <m_schnei@gmx.de>
- Cc: public-owl-dev@w3.org
On Apr 23, 2007, at 8:15 PM, Michael Schneider wrote: > Hi Bijan, sorry for the late response! No worries. > Bijan Parsia wrote on Thu, 19 Apr 2007: > >> On Apr 19, 2007, at 9:38 PM, Michael Schneider wrote: [snip] >> But then what do you care about the "big honking chunk of >> reification" in your ontology? The tool will take care of it. > > Well, I said that I prefer using a tool for /editing/ ontologies. I > experience it to be error prone and a lot of work to even create/ > modify > small OWL ontologies by hand. On the other hand, I do /not/ always > /watch/ OWL ontologies through an OWL browser. IMHO, OWL/RDF is quite > readable, and at least for small to medium OWL ontologies like e.g. > wine.owl or pizza.owl, I was always able to get a good overview of > those > ontologies within reasonable time by just looking at the RDF/XML > syntax. Sure. I think it's pretty much a lost cause in general, but I see where you're coming from. To clarify, I thought the rdf:ID on property element trick did *not* include the asserted triple. Since it does, and since that trick really is critical, I have no further opposition. > I think that good readability of at least the primary serialization > format of OWL is an aspect, which might be of some importance, if > OWL is > going to become a widely spread language for the semantic web. Well, I think there is a pretty widespread belief that RDF/XML is illegible *for RDF*. Given that, I'm inclined not to worry *too* much. However, your amendment is quite friendly now that my confusion is cleared up, so I don't have any strong feelings against it. [snip] > One last word about the ID trick that we were talking about earlier: > This won't of course work anymore, if the RDF reification > vocabulary is > /not/ being used. Yes. Rocks and hard places and all. No systematically good choices. Hence my preference for the XML syntax. > But what remains is the separation between axioms and > annotations in the RDF mapping, as mentioned above. > >> I'm loathe to use reification in general, but if we do, then >> given this bit i see no reason for including both. I'm convinced >> enough to suggest that you file a bug report in the owl 1.1 >> issues list. > > I will consider to file two proposals: One for using an alternative > reification vocabulary (not RDF reification). And another one for my > "always spo" approach. They are in tension :) > But I will wait with this until this thread has > effectively ended. I think it has. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Monday, 23 April 2007 19:33:04 UTC