- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 10:05:34 -0400
- To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.at>
- Cc: public-sws-ig@w3.org, Gerhard Wickler <Gerhard.Wickler@informatik.uni-stuttgart.de>, Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>
On Jun 22, 2004, at 7:37 AM, Jacek Kopecky wrote: > > Hi all, I've only been lurking here, but on this point I have a newbie > question: wouldn't reification be a better tool than reparsing of > literals? No. :) > The amount of work for the implementations would be the same > but it would seem to me to be much cleaner from the data modeling point > of view - Definitely not. I mean, it's six of one, half dozen of the other. They both suck from a modeling perspective. > for instance when serialized as n-triples, the literal > approach would keep XML syntax intermixed with the n-triples, So? How does this help the modeling? In fact, it seems to obscure thing too me. From an implementation point of view, it's much easier to find the preconditions, you don't have to worry about missing triples, etc. etc. etc. > whereas > reification would have everything as n-triples. And this is better *modeling* how? I don't see that this affects modeling at all. It's just (painful) syntax either way. In either case, you have to parse the respresentation to create your actual representation. Cheers, Bijan Parsia.
Received on Tuesday, 22 June 2004 10:05:43 UTC