Re: RDF/XML shorthand for RDF reification

On Jun 26, 2008, at 10:43 AM, Bijan Parsia wrote:

>> What about the other way around - the "same" axiom having multiple  
>> differently named reifications - this would seem to be analogous to  
>> the current bnode case?
> Seems worse.

To make the analogy clearer: imagine you declared, by fiat, that any  
s,p,o  where p=rdf:type and o=owl:Axiom was a bnode and the identifier  
should be understood as bnode identifier.

Then the rest of the parsing would be the same, I think. I'm not  
suggesting that one actual does the declaration for real - just trying  
to establish what the delta would be from current parsing to parsing  
with identifiers instead of bnodes in this specific case.  This is  
worse in the sense that you have to do a bit more work, but not worse  
in a particularly damaging way as far as I can tell.


Received on Thursday, 26 June 2008 15:17:48 UTC