Re: ISSUE-67 (reification): REPORTED: use of reification in mapping rules is unwise

I'd have to say that on principal I'm against anything having a  
realization in the structural specification but not in the RF form.   
In fact, I'd argue for the reverse, anything not realizable in the  
RDF realization should not be included in the structural spec <em> as  
part of the standard </em> - I have no objection to the advocates of  
the structural form publishing some kind of notes outside the W3C  
process advocating and using some extensions - but I think the W3C  
rec needs to be consistent across these things - (you'll notice I've  
softened my position from saying the structural spec is harmful and  
shouldn't be included at all :-) )

On Nov 21, 2007, at 6:40 AM, Boris Motik wrote:

>
> 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
>>
>
>
>

"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would  
it?." - Albert Einstein

Prof James Hendler				http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler
Tetherless World Constellation Chair
Computer Science Dept
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180