- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 20:00:03 +0100
- To: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Just to be clear, I'm not advocating putting in the triple or leaving it out at this point. There are reasons both ways (and we can't always get around leaving it out, as with negative property assertions). I don't think the performance case is very strong against it, however, certainly not conclusive *even on its own terms* (i.e., we have to make unrealistic assumptions about likely data *and* ignore the potentially significant bloat of the data *and* neglect likely use patterns). There's no question, of course, that it requires a more sophisticated implementation. I'll note further that allowing reification in user land (i.e., not just in syntax) will bring similar issues. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Thursday, 12 June 2008 18:57:54 UTC