- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:40:03 -0400
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
The point I was making is that it that I though that it was unreasonable for owl not to have the reified triple, and therefore this is well suited ;-) I also pointed out that it nullified the argument that there was an additional parsing burden to parse the "extra" actual reified triple. In effect the RDF/XML shorthand makes the parsing burden for a fully reified triple only slightly more than for the triple itself. -Alan On Jun 25, 2008, at 2:15 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > > It appears to me that the RDF/XML shorthand for RDF reification > creates > named reification, i.e., it names the reified triple. I believe that > this means that its use is not reasonable for OWL. > > peter >
Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2008 18:40:44 UTC