- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:57:17 -0400
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
On Jun 25, 2008, at 3:50 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > 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. OK. I see this now. Good point. I'll poke around to see if there is a remedy. -Alan > > 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 20:58:00 UTC