Re: OWL-S process preconditions

Gerhard,

I believe it's better to model variables in the actual RDF than to have
some syntactical subparsing in RDF/XML literals. Of course when
processing, variable identification and substitution has to be done in
both cases - that's what I meant when saying "the amount of work would
be the same" - but I don't think any of the cleanliness is lost in
modeling variables as resources. In any case, a rule language ought to
have a first-class notion of a variable, right? 8-)

I'm not sure what you mean by point 2, in fact I'm sure I don't
understand it. 8-)

Best regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Ph.D. student researcher
                   Digital Enterprise Research Institute
                   http://www.deri.org/




On Tue, 2004-06-22 at 14:41, Gerhard Wickler wrote:
> Good point. I agree that having RDF/XML as the content language (using 
> reification) looks like a good idea, especially because it answers my 
> semantics question, but I suspect two major problems here:
> 
> 1. RDF/XML has no notion of variables in triples. Of course, this could 
> be fixed somehow, but some of the cleanlyness of this appraoch would be 
> lost along the way.
> 
> 2. RDF/XML *essentially* allows for conjunctions of (positive ground) 
> triples, which does not provide for much expressiveness.
> 
> Gerhard
> 
> 
> 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? 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 - for instance when serialized as n-triples, the literal
> >approach would keep XML syntax intermixed with the n-triples, whereas
> >reification would have everything as n-triples.
> >
> >Best regards,
> >
> >                   Jacek Kopecky
> >
> >                   Ph.D. student researcher
> >                   Digital Enterprise Research Institute
> >                   http://www.deri.org/
> >
> >  
> >
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 22 June 2004 10:13:42 UTC