Re: One comment on RDF mapping [related to ISSUE 67 and ISSUE 81]


Sorry for the delayed response.

Seems that we don't quite agree on the how much additional cost by 
leaving axiom triples out.
I am glad to see at least we agree that it requires a more 
sophisticated  implementation. :) 
Can I  ask the WG then to simply the mapping so that unsophisticated 
developers like me
have an easier time implementing OWL2 in a commercial product. I believe 
that is a very reasonable



Bijan Parsia wrote:
> 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 Friday, 13 June 2008 01:51:29 UTC