- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:05:17 -0400 (EDT)
- To: alan.wu@oracle.com
- Cc: bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk, public-owl-wg@w3.org
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. > > > > > >
Received on Friday, 13 June 2008 14:09:20 UTC