- From: Alan Wu <alan.wu@oracle.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 21:49:06 -0400
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- CC: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Bijan, 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 request. Cheers, Zhe 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