Re: datatype maps and annotations

On 30 Mar 2017 09:53, "Ian Horrocks" <ian.horrocks@cs.ox.ac.uk> wrote:

I agree that the clear intention was that annotations play no role in
determining the profile, even if the spec is not so clear on this point.

This POV is supported by the stated motivation for the profiles, which is
to "trade some expressive power for the efficiency of reasoning”.
Annotations do not contribute to expressive power and play no role in
reasoning, so it would be very strange if they were to play a role in
determining the profile.

Ian



OTOH an undeclared annotation property, while not affecting reasoning - and
so not affecting the profile - becomes an annoyance for parsers, among
other things.

So maybe the profile checker could produce a list of profile violations and
one of warnings? The second to be dealt with for the purpose of better
parsers and in general improving the world?

Cheers,
Ignazio




> On 29 Mar 2017, at 21:15, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> I'm in a discussion about whether annotation axioms and ontology
annotations are subject to the datatype restrictions that are checked for
conformance to a profile. I don't recall discussing this, but it seems like
it would not have been the intent since the datatype map is only of
relevance to the reasoner. Some parts of the spec read like they might
apply, others part ambiguous (at least to me).
>
> *I* don't think that the values of annotations should play a role in
determining the profile, but I wonder if others who were in the WG can
speak to this.
>
> Alan
>
>