Re: RDF/XML shorthand for RDF reification

The point I was making was that using the shorthand results in the
reification node having a real name, i.e., not being a blank node, which
messes up lots of things, including parsing and semantics.  Therefore,
arguments that rely on using the shorthand are not applicable, at least
without doing some investigation to see whether there is a remedy.

This has nothing to do whether one would like to have the base triple or
not.

peter

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: RDF/XML shorthand for RDF reification
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:40:03 -0400

> 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 19:51:36 UTC