- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 18:42:34 -0500
- To: "Jeff Thompson" <jeff@thefirst.org>
- Cc: public-owl-dev@w3.org
Just for the record, as OWL 2 is now in last call, if you would like a formal working group response to this issue, please send mail to public-owl-comments@w3.org. Comments on this list from working group members, including myself, reflect our own views, and not necessarily those of the working group. Regards, Alan http://www.w3.org/News/2008#item204 On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:35 PM, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 23:43:10 UTC