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

I'm not sure what you are asking for.

I suppose that it would be possible to simplify the mapping, but I think
that any real simplification would require a complete rewrite of the
mapping, perhaps to move to something like a list-based representation
of OWL syntax.  This would be a major change.

On the other hand, you may be simply asking to slightly modify the
mapping (e.g., to include base triples for annotated axioms).  I have
argued that this is not a simplification.  Bijan has argued that it
might even make the reverse mapping more time-consuming.

peter

From: Alan Wu <alan.wu@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: One comment on RDF mapping [related to ISSUE 67 and ISSUE 81]
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 21:49:06 -0400

> 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.
> >
> >
> 
>