- From: Michael Schneider <m_schnei@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 22:36:58 +0200
- To: danbri@danbri.org
- CC: W3C SWIG Mailing-List <semantic-web@w3.org>, bdarcus@gmail.com, garret@globalmentor.com, ivan@w3.org
Dan Brickley wrote:
> I dislike the existing reification vocabulary. But we can't rewrite
> history: those classes and properties are in use. Should we really make
> http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#predicate and the others be
> 404? or at least not describe those terms in the main RDF namespace?
>
> I'd be happy to see them depractated using OWL or other terminology
LOL! You might be interested in the fact, that RDF Reification has just
been introduced into the current OWL-1.1 draft for mapping the new
concept of annotated (i.e. commented) axioms to RDF syntax:
<http://webont.org/owl/1.1/rdf_mapping.html#2>
Axioms with annotations are reified. If s p o is the RDF
serialization of the corresponding axiom without
annotations given in Table 2 and the axiom contains annotations
Annotation(apIDi cti), 1 ≤ i ≤ n, then, instead of being
serialized as s p o, the axiom is serialized as follows:
_:x rdf:type owl11:Axiom
_:x T(apIDi) T(cti) 1 ≤ i ≤ n
_:x rdf:subject s
_:x rdf:predicate p
_:x rdf:object o
Long live Reification! ;-)
Michael
Received on Wednesday, 8 August 2007 20:37:19 UTC