- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 12:35:40 -0500
- To: "Jeff Thompson" <jeff@thefirst.org>
- Cc: public-owl-dev@w3.org
I don't think we call the use of these predicates "reification", or imply anything other than what is defined in the rdf mapping and the rdf semantics. -Alan On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Jeff Thompson <jeff@thefirst.org> wrote: > > In mapping OWL to RDF graphs, to make an annotation on a triple, the triple > is reified into separate subject, predicate and object assertions > similar to reification in RDF. > > _:x rdf:type owl:Annotation > _:x owl:subject T(y) > _:x owl:predicate T(AP) > _:x owl:object T(av) > > But Tim Berners-Lee is still saying that reification in RDF is broken. > See this message from last year: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2007Jan/0088.html > > If reification in RDF is broken, and OWL adopts the same method for > quoting a triple so that it can be annotated, does OWL inherit > the same problems Tim has been talking about for all these years? > > - Jeff > > >
Received on Wednesday, 3 December 2008 17:36:23 UTC