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

On 13 Jun 2008, at 15:05, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

> 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.

Something like: http://www.cs.yale.edu/~dvm/papers/McDermottDou02.pdf  
or other familiar techniques.

> 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.

Just so *everyone* is cross with me, I do know that some people  
really want it. I think, also, to my repeated surprise, that the ID  
on property elements shortcut generates both the triple and its  
reification. Bleah. I guess there's some naturalness from an RDF/XML  
point of view argument to be made (however unnatural an argument that  
might be :)).

Cheers,
Bijan.