- From: Jacco van Ossenbruggen <Jacco.van.Ossenbruggen@cwi.nl>
- Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 15:40:55 +0100
- To: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
- CC: Jan Wielemaker <wielemak@science.uva.nl>
Jacco van Ossenbruggen wrote: > Review of http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mark/wn/wn-conversion.html In addition to my previous review, one more remark. Under open issues, the document now states: "One of the issues is whether or not to make the inverse properties "visible" to RDFS tools." Following an off-list discussion between Mark and Jan Wielemaker, I only now understand that this line refers to the fact that all reverse triples have been explicitly added "to help" RDF-only applications that do not understand the owl inverse predicate. From what I understand from Jan, this results in more than a million extra triples (!). I agree with Jan that these extra triples should be not part of the core translation: For OWL users, over 1M of redundant triples is very inconvenient, rule-based systems have probably more efficient ways to deal with this problem and even many RDF users would probably be happy to formulate their query in both directions explicitly if this reduces their triple store with more than a million triples. Another argument against explicitly added inverse triples is that if inverse triples are added explicitly, the same should be done with transitive triples, which is not the case either. Of course, I have no objection against providing these triples in a separate file as an extra service. Thanks to Jan for bringing this up, Jacco
Received on Monday, 28 November 2005 14:41:09 UTC