W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > June 2008

Re: RDF/XML shorthand for RDF reification

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:53:54 +0100
Message-Id: <DCAF279B-D823-40F6-8D0F-D23619089785@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>

On 25 Jun 2008, at 22:48, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:

> 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.
> Just for the record, how will it mess up parsing and semantics. All  
> of our use of reification is for axioms. As I see it, the  
> difference would be whether axioms had names in OWL Full (on the  
> semantics side) and on the parsing described in table 6 and 17,  
> which seem like they could be adjusted to used named instead of  
> blank nodes.

Here's a possibility:

Suppose I serialize the same ontology with annotations on axioms  
twice using two different serializers, S1 and S2. S1 sorts the axioms  
lexicographically, then generates names for the axioms starting from  
a seed and prefixing it with the xml:base, plus some urn prfix. S2  
also sorts lexicographically, but ascending (whereas S1 is  
descending) and uses the same genname function.

Now suppose I merge (or import) these two ontologies. It seems that I  
would get some potentially strange results.

Naming axioms should done with *extreme* care.

Received on Thursday, 26 June 2008 10:01:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:41:48 UTC