| | 152 | I think (I hope anyway) that I've made a convincing argument against unique, identified literals in the externally facing, interoperability-focused ISO 15926 OWL representation. I think that a lot of it comes down to dealing with the merging, splitting and rejoining of RDF graphs from different sources. If we take the current state of part 7 as written, it makes the RDF representation very much a transitory state of the data. That's okay for people who have EXPRESS, but the attraction of RDF/OWL for the rest of is that it is available, free and very active and we'd rather keep the data in RDF if we can, and have to massage it as little as possible. Its not so much a matter of "it can't work", but more a matter of "its error prone to make it work well and it will be slower". |
