- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:49:25 +0100
- To: Michael Schneider <m_schnei@gmx.de>
- CC: danbri@danbri.org, W3C SWIG Mailing-List <semantic-web@w3.org>, bdarcus@gmail.com, garret@globalmentor.com, ivan@w3.org
Michael Schneider wrote: > > 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: I do not think this was a good idea. The semantics of RDF reification is sufficiently broken that this move does not do what it is intended to do, except for the member submission docs not having an OWL Full component, so that they do not pretend to have an RDF compatible semantics. Given that the (draft) charter emphasises the need for such compatibility I am assuming that what to do about axiom annotations will be a moderately difficult issue for the new group. I think deprecating reification would usefully mark it as not fit for purpose. It would be helpful if such deprecation was aligned with named graph standardization, which offers a non-broken replacement. Jeremy -- Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Monday, 13 August 2007 10:49:49 UTC