- From: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 11:40:45 -0000
- To: "'Jeremy Carroll'" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: "'OWL Working Group WG'" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Hello, I don't want to get into an argument here whether this is really needed or not; however, I wanted to point out that I spoke to quite a few people asking for the annotation of axioms. There is yet another solution: we might have axiom annotations in the structural specification, but then disallow (or simply delete them) when the ontology is exported into OWL RDF. Boris > -----Original Message----- > From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Carroll > Sent: 21 November 2007 11:37 > To: Boris Motik > Cc: 'OWL Working Group WG' > Subject: Re: ISSUE-67 (reification): REPORTED: use of reification in mapping rules is unwise > > > Boris Motik wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I actually really dislike reification myself; unfortunately, I don't see how to get around these > issues in certain cases. The > > problem is that sometimes you need more than binary associations between objects. > > > > For example, consider the problem of annotating a SubClassOf axiom. In RDF, you write <x > rdfs:subClassof y>. But you've just used > > both x and y; there is no place for an annotation. > > > > The only solution I see is not to use reification, but to introduce yet separate vocabulary and > represent ternary relations more > > explicitly. I am really open to any suggestions on this point, because I do see the point that > reification is ugly. > > > > Boris > > > > > A different approach would be to decide that we cannot address the use > cases for annotations of axioms yet, and to postpone related issues, and > make do with the OWL 1.0 solution. > > Jeremy >
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 11:41:32 UTC