- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:53:54 +0100
- To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Cc: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
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. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Thursday, 26 June 2008 10:01:51 UTC