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

Hi,

As far as I understand annotations are already pretty weak semantically in
OWL 1.1 (actually they have no semantics), thus mapping them into a
structure with weak semantics, like reification, seems harmless to me. 

On the other hand this might not be the case for other constructors which do
have formal semantics.

Greetings,
G. Stoilos

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Boris Motik
> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 1:41 PM
> To: 'Jeremy Carroll'
> Cc: 'OWL Working Group WG'
> Subject: RE: ISSUE-67 (reification): REPORTED: use of reification in
> mapping rules is unwise
> 
> 
> 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 Thursday, 22 November 2007 10:31:32 UTC